Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9

Return ordered,
of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1981–82.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent without because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Return ordered,
of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1981–82 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the Committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. and by the House respectively, in Session 1981–82, showing the number where the question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 73A(5).—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1981–82:

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 30)

Return ordered,
respecting application of Standing Order No. 30 (Closure of debate) during Session 1981–82, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1981–82 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1981–82 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:

And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1981–82 showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation or Dissolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
of Select Committees in Session 1981–82, with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the number of the meetings of each and the number of meetings each Member attended; and the number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with the total cost (estimated where necessary) in respect of each Select Committee and Sub-Committee both for the Session 1981–82 and for the financial year 1981–82 of:—the attendance of witnesses; overseas visits; visits within the United Kingdom; Specialist Advisers' remuneration and expenses respectively, and other work commissioned; entertainment; the preparation for publication of the Minutes of Evidence; and printing and publishing; with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered,
of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1981–82 stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time

appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which the Business of Supply was considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
for Session 1981–82, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) or Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,
of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1981–82; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively ; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders:

Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1981–82, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — Oral Answers to Questions

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that questions and answers have been getting intolerably long, which means that we have reached far fewer questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I acknowledge virtue from whatever source it comes. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind what I have said. If questions and answers become too long, that limits the number of hon. Members I can call.

TRANSPORT

London (Transportation Report)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his response to the Transport Committee's report on transportation in London.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): The Government will be indicating before long their views on this major and far-reaching report. Meanwhile, I particularly welcome the Committee's endorsement of the need for a balanced and stable transport policy and the direction of available resources into improvements in the quality and efficiency of London's transport system rather than ill-directed and wasteful fares subsidies.

Mr. Chapman: In the light of the Transport Committee's report, does my right hon. Friend agree that a priority of London Transport should be more investment to create a better infrastructure? Secondly, what proportion of total transport subsidy goes to the London area?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is much better, as the Select Committee reports, that resources should go to investment rather than be squandered in excessive fares subsidies. That is why the Government are backing the light railway for London Docklands and the terminal 4 extension. Of the entire transport supplementary grant for the nation, 40 per cent. goes into London.

Mr. Bagier: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Select Committee's report was directed to transport in London? Will he take this opportunity to deny any rumours among other transport authorities that the report could be used to apply similar conditions to them? Will he confirm also that the report is for London only?

Mr. Howell: Indeed, the report was directed to transport in London. It was an analysis by the Select Committee of the great difficulties under which London Transport has had to operate, the excessive political interference and the need, so the Select Committee proposed, for a separate authority for London. That is what it was about.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents who work in London, many of whom are on low incomes, have to pay almost £1,000 out of their after-tax income for their annual season tickets? Does he realise that that is a crippling burden on their family budgets? If the Greater London Council is unable to achieve economies and efficiencies for London Transport, will he ensure that, if further subsidy is required, it comes out of

the national Exchequer, not by means of enabling legislation that will put a further burden on London ratepayers?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that fares have risen far too sharply. I agree also with his concern about renewing the assault on London ratepayers as the answer to the problem. The way to keep fares down is to increase efficiency, to use sensibly the considerable subsidy that is available and to avoid unnecessary political mucking about with London Transport, so that it can get on and do a good job in an atmosphere of stability. That is the best service that London Transport can give its passengers.

Mr. Booth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the experience of practically every capital city which is comparable with London is that a considerable amount of national Exchequer subsidy for fares is necessary so that there can be acceptable levels of ridership, without which no amount of investment in the system will be worth while?

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The huge Tokyo system is comparable with that of London and it runs on a much lower level of subsidy. However, I recognise that there is a need for a substantial subsidy. I recognise also that it is essential that it should be administered in a stable context. The yo-yo experience that London Transport has had this year does no good for the capital, no good for the passengers and no good for the transport system.

British Rail (Productivity and Investment)

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of Stale for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of the British Railways Board on productivity and investment.

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when next he plans to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss investment in the industry.

Mr. David Howell: I meet the chairman frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Temple-Morris: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he make it clear to him that he is behind the board in its efforts, with the backing of Lord McCarthy, to ensure that any future pay deal is related to productivity? In that regard, does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent pronouncements and decisions by the National Union of Railwaymen? Will he doubly welcome them if ASLEF shows signs of similar co-operation?

Mr. Howell: I welcome recent developments. I welcome the NUR's response to the McCarthy decision. The British Railways Board is negotiating with the unions, and it would not be proper for me to comment on that matter. Clearly, it is desirable that restrictive practices be removed and productivity increased so that the path can be cleared for a better railways future.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State recall that on innumerable occasions during the recent disputes on British Rail he said that if the unions agreed to productivity arrangements additional capital investment would be


forthcoming? Now that those agreements have been reached, when will the Secretary of State honour the undertakings that he gave time and again in the House?

Mr. Howell: Agreements have not yet been reached. It is important that negotiations take place so that the undertakings on productivity given by the unions both last year and this year are honoured. I want future investment in British Rail to take place, but this year British Rail lost £240 million through industrial disputes. Frankly, I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman, or his right hon. Friends, did much to oppose the strikes. Indeed, they did their level best to encourage them. If it is a question of money, that is where £240 million went.

Mr. Major: In view of the productivity improvements, when does my right hon. Friend expect to approve capital investment in the electrification of the east coast main line scheme, which is of immense importance to East Anglia and places further north, especially between Hitchin and Peterborough? Many of my constituents would welcome that investment.

Mr. Howell: It is an important scheme. We are considering it currently against the background of British Rail's latest figures for the future of the inter-city business.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that during the rail disputes Len Murray, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) did everything possible to try to resolve the difficulties? The only person who did nothing, but who provoked the dispute even further, was the Secretary of State.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's memory is short. Some of the speeches by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did nothing whatsoever to shorten the strike or make its resolution easier. I repeat: this year £240 million was lost by British Rail on strikes. That money could have been used for the type of investment that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) want.

M6 Link (Heysham)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider his decision not to grant the M6 link to Heysham trunk road status in the light of the British Gas Corporation's decision with regard to the port of Heysham.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I regret that the answer must still be "No."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware of other calls upon my hon. Friend's generosity, but does she appreciate that the advent of the British Gas Corporation's operations at Heysham, combined with the new spirit of drive and enterprise displayed by Sealink as a result of other decisions by her Department, will lead to increased traffic for the area? May we have an assurance that the matter is under constant review?

Mrs. Chalker: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The matter is under review. We checked only this morning with the British Gas Corporation, and its exact plans have not yet been finalised. Until they are, it would be premature to make any decision other than that which I have made.

Road Construction Statistics

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new motorway construction and how many miles of new trunk road construction have been started in the current financial year.

Mrs. Chalker: Work has actually started on or contracts let for 15 miles of motorway and 29 miles of trunk road so far in the current financial year. By next March we plan to have started about 100 miles in all this year, of which about half will be motorways.

Mr. Knox: In view of the inadequacy of the present motorway and major trunk road network to carry today's traffic, does my hon. Friend agree that the figures are low? Does she further agree that a higher proportion of public expenditure should be used for new road construction?

Mrs. Chalker: The proportion allocated for spending in 1982–83 is £695 million, of which £522 million is for new construction. We are certainly moving ahead in dealing with the motorway gaps, as my hon. Friend might call them. For example, the public inquiry into the M40 started in September. I do not agree that the record is bad. Last year we completed 77 miles of trunk roads and motorways. This year we are looking to complete 87 miles, or more. We have started a further 103 miles. That is not a bad record. The figures are going up all the time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the A69, which links the north-west town of Carlisle with the north-east town of Newcastle, is vital to the development of the Northern region? Since for much of its length the road has not been improved, will she take a special interest in it and secure money for its improvement in the near future?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall take a special look at the A69. Many of the improvements planned for next year and the year after may seem small in themselves, but they are improvements which were lacking under the Labour Government.

Mr. Crouch:: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the strong feeling among constituents that the A299—the Thanet Way—which runs from the end of the M2 at Brenley Corner to Thanet for about 20 miles, is inadequate for today's traffic? Is she aware that too many people-26 in all—have died on that road in the past three years? Does she agree that something must—I emphasise "must"—be done to put that right? Does she further agree that the only solution is to turn the road into a dual carriageway trunk road?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will recall that when I visited Thanet Way on 30 July I commented to him that many of the road signs were not as good as I had hoped. We have asked Kent county council to look into that matter. The level of traffic, although the road is busy, does not yet justify a dual carriageway. I have also asked the county council to consider the number of access points, because they are the cause of many of the accidents.

Mr. Foster: Is the Under-Secretary aware that recently Conservative Members of the European Parliament gave unanimous support to a resolution of the Committee on Transport calling for an integrated transport system within which rail would have priority? Is she further aware that


it made a bid for a fund of £6 million for rail infrastructure? Will she urge the Secretary of State to support that proposal when it goes to the Council of Ministers?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend is considering all those matters. This year he has announced an increase from 50 to 60 per cent. in the section 8 grant for taking heavy goods traffic off roads and on to rail. Already 200,000 movements by rail have taken place as a result of my right hon. Friend's initiatives in the past year.

Passenger Costs

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated passenger cost per mile of travel on (a) London Transport tubes, (b) London Transport buses and (c) British Rail commuter services.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): There are no strictly comparable figures available, but the nearest I can give is for a typical journey length at current single fares—16p, 16p and lop, respectively, on London Transport tubes, buses and British Rail commuter services.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that the cost per passenger mile on London Transport tubes and buses is among the highest, if not the highest, of any major city in the world? Why do Londoners, of all people in the world, have to bear such a heavy burden for their public transport?

Mr. Eyre: London fares are undoubtedly high, but the blame must be placed on the GLC, which interfered in the fixing of fares and in other ways and made a right mess of it. Instead of imposing further excessive increases on the ratepayers, the GLC should concentrate on increasing efficiency. If London Transport costs had risen no more than those of PTEs in other parts of the country, savings of £80 million could have been made this year and put towards reducing fares.

Mr. Fry: Will my hon. Friend confirm—or deny—that any increase in commuter fares, as projected by British Rail, will be subject to any extra injection of funds by the Government? There have been reports that the Department of Transport has given British Rail a considerable amount of money to keep rail prices down.

Mr. Eyre: There is no foundation for that story. The public service obligation for next year has not yet been determined.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not all due to the wickedness of the GLC, whether under Tory or Labour control? The Select Committee recently pointed out in its revolutionary proposals for London Transport that it needs an enormous amount of capital expenditure. That can be provided for London only by the State.

Mr. Eyre: A reasonable and proper measure of subsidy is needed, but after that it is essentially a matter of the efficient use of resources to get the best possible value for money. Considerable improvements could be made in various areas of London Transport's operations.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is disadvantageous for areas such as my constituency in north-west London, where there are no British Rail stations and commuters have to use the tube? In his

discussions with the GLC and London Transport, will my hon. Friend ensure a fairer zoning policy, because it is now weighted against my part of north-west London?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend is right to point to the unfairness of the zoning system as it affects fares. Costs per mile of maintaining the underground are higher than those of British Rail's surface railway. The GLC and London Transport give the bulk of subsidy available to the buses. The underground traveller cross subsidises the buses. The GLC has the balance of the subsidy wrong.

Mr. Booth: What proportion of the GLC rates increase to which the Minister referred was the result of the clawback which was introduced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, what proportion came from the deficit on the transport budget inherited from the Tory-controlled GLC, and what proportion was attributable 10 the cheap fares policy? If the Minister does not have the figures, will he confirm that the proportion attributable to the cheap fares policy was much smaller than the other two factors taken together?

Mr. Eyre: I do not have the precise figures for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. He will understand that it is not possible to answer that question in detail without notice. The clawback was connected with the GLC's total expenditure and affected matters other than transport.
I emphasise that the increase in revenue subsidy that is proposed by the GLC rises from £89 million approved last year to £240 million this year. The GLC must be aware that that is completely unrealistic in today's circumstances.

Railways (Electrification and Modernisation)

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce approval of plans for further electrification and modernisation of the railways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received from the chairman of the British Railways Board any application for the authorisation of further electrification programmes.

Mr. David Howell: I am currently considering the British Railways Board's proposed 10-year programme of main line electrification, and its request for approval in principle to electrify the east coast main line to Leeds and to Newcastle. I shall announce decisions on those proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a better atmosphere now between the management of British Rail and the rail unions? Is it not time to capitalise on that by drawing everybody together—the Minister is the only one who can do that—to discuss future electrification, modernisation and productivity and all the other problems of the railways? I suggest that there is an opportunity for the Minister to arrange such a meeting. He and I know the importance of an efficient railway system.

Mr. Howell: I accept that there are signs of progress in British Rail. There is a need to settle the outstanding productivity matters, to get more investment and to generate the funds for that investment. I mentioned earlier the regrettable losses sustained due to the strikes earlier in the year.
It is not only public funds that can be a source of investment in British Rail. Indeed, British Rail has


decided to investigate the idea of private capital investment in a separate Victoria-Gatwick service. We can look to a number of sources for improved investment in British Rail.

Mr. Snape: How long have the specific proposals for the electrification of the Hitchin-Huntingdon line been on the right hon. Gentleman's desk? When does he intend to shake off that air of languid disinterest and do something about the railways industry and investment before the industry crumbles entirely?

Mr. Howell: That is a major business investment, which must be judged on its merits. British Rail's planning assumptions have changed, and it is necessary to have the right plans for the future of the inter-city train business—of which electrification is a vital part—before a decision is made.

Mr. Snape: How long has the right hon. Gentleman had it?

Mr. Howell: The original proposals were put forward in the early summer. British Rail's new figures have still to reach me.

Mr. Higgins: We would all like to see more profitable investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to go ahead with further investment until the new productivity agreements—including the St. Pancras line—are seen to be operating?

Mr. Howell: New investment must be judged on its merit as a business proposition. At the same time, it is essential that existing productivity agreements are delivered and existing investment works properly. The fact that the Bedford-St. Pancras trains are not operating is a poor advertisement for investment in new equipment in British Rail.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister have good news for the people of Wales when the electrification plans are announced? Has he plans to modernise any of the railways in Wales?

Mr. Howell: Detailed plans for investment and modernisation are for British Rail. The hon. Gentleman should question the chairman of British Rail about those plans. I have said more than once this afternoon that I should like to see further investment in British Rail. A large proportion of the substantial social grant given to British Rail is put aside specifically for new investment in track, maintenance and signalling.

Mr. Cockeram: Before putting more taxpayers' money into British Rail, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that subsidies to British Rail approach £1,000 million per annum, which is in marked contrast to the £690 million invested in roads announced earlier by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and the majority of freight and passenger transport is by road.

Mr. Howell: I never cease to bear in mind the enormous sums of money involved.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The electrification report has been with the right hon. Gentleman's Department for many years and there is a strong argument for increasing investment to boost the number of passengers on the railways. Is the Secretary of State trying to get into the "Guinness Book of Records" as the Minister who takes the longest time possible to make up his mind on an issue?

Mr. Howell: The decisions must be based on British Rail's performance and its determination to generate funds and on the determination by the unions to abandon restrictive practices from another era, to abandon wasteful strikes and to work together for a better railway system. The delay has been caused by the enormous draining away of funds on industrial disputes. We had precious little support from the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends in the summer when those strikes were bleeding British Rail to death.

Cornwall and Devon (Road Improvements)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the current progress being made in the construction of major road improvements in Cornwall and Devon; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: We are making good progress with most of the existing major trunk road improvement schemes in Cornwall and Devon and are keeping to the programme published in "Policy for Roads; England 1981" Cmnd. 8496.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that increased capital investment in roads need not be inflationary, does not lead to increased import penetration and does much to restore the level of economic activity in depressed areas? Is she aware that in Devon and Cornwall there is bitter disappointment that the impetus of the road building programme in the early 1970s has not been continued and that this belated flurry of proposals contained in White Papers and the like is no real substitute for plant hire and tarmac on the ground?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the concern of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in the South-West that the area should have better roads. With regard to my hon. Friend's constituency, last December we announced the revised preferred route for the Saltash bypass, about which he has been concerned, and we are getting on with that project and shall be publishing the draft orders early next year.
Aside from that, many other schemes are proceeding well. We shall give the local authorities all the encouragement that we can to get on with the schemes that they are bringing forward. A further 19 major schemes in Devon and Cornwall, at an estimated cost of £176 million, are at present in preparation and they will start in the next four years or so. I therefore believe that we are doing as much as we possibly can, given that we still have restricted finances.

Mr. Neale: I thank my hon. Friend for taking account of the various views and comments on road improvements of the representative groups in the West Country. Will she confirm that she is now investigating the potential economic gain to the county of Cornwall of ensuring that any improvement to the A30 west of Whiddon Down should be dual carriageway rather than a single track road?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows that many areas of the country experience a great traffic upsurge at certain times of the year. Where a dual carriageway can be justified we shall, of course, go ahead and build it. However, my priority must be to get the roads established that will bypass villages, to get rid of the traffic from which they should not be suffering. We now seek to design


single carriageway roads so that where there may be a need for a second track in future years such a road can be extended when the demand exists.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question relates to Cornwall and Devon. Mr. Leslie Spriggs.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have been eliminated.

Severn Bridge

Mr. Mudd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the condition of the Severn bridge.

Mrs. Chalker: In a few weeks.

Mr. Mudd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that promise of things yet to come. We were promised October, and in the next few days it will be November. My hon. Friend may well be as worried as the majority of us are about the continued build-up in the volume and weight of lorries using this bridge. What reassurance can she give that the relationship of weight potential to the actual volume and number of vehicles carried is not becoming disproportionate, to a potentially dangerous level?

Mrs. Chalker: All the investigations that have been undertaken, and are still continuing, by Flint and Neill, and all the work of the Department, takes into account the level, volume and weight of the traffic that the bridge has been carrying and will carry in the future. The proposals will take full account of the worries expressed by the all-party roads group when it met me on the bridge in July.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is consideration being given to the possibility of a second bridge, in view of the tremendous use that is made of the existing one? Is there any possibility of linking such a project with the Severn barrage scheme? When the hon. Lady says "In a few weeks" does she mean that a statement will be made in the Queen's Speech.

Mrs. Chalker: We shall not be ready to make a statement in the Queen's Speech. It will take a week or so longer than that. We must consider the cost-effectiveness of strengthening the present crossing to give various standards of future service. As my right hon. Friend said in June, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales we are reviewing the longer-term future for the crossing. At this stage I have no reason to disagree with the working party composed of officials of my Department and the Welsh Office, which concluded last year that on traffic grounds the need for the new crossing was not yet proven, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole matter is under continuous review.

Mr. Colvin: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend has not answered the first part of the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). Does she appreciate that if the Severn barrage were built, it would probably have a motorway running along the top of it? That would greatly ease the traffic over the Severn estuary as it would provide a traffic link between the West Country and South Wales. Will she therefore confirm that the Department of Transport is adding its weight to those who are in favour of the Severn barrage and that the Secretary of State will be speaking in support of it in the Cabinet?

Mrs. Chalker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). The Secretary of State for Energy has not yet taken any decision on the barrage. If the barrage incorporated a carriageway suitable for normal traffic, there would be problems in the lowering and raising of one section. At present there is no evidence that much traffic would use the crossing at the particular location where the barrage is likely to be sited.

Mr. Booth: In view of the serious bottleneck effect of the lane closures on the Severn bridge, which we understand will continue until such time as the bridge is strengthened, will the Minister consider withdrawing the tolls during the period of lane closures to speed the traffic flow across the bridge?

Mrs. Chalker: As the House probably knows, the lane closures in the early mornings are a precaution against overloading, and he tailback has not been extensive. Of late, there have been temporary lane restrictions in off-peak time, which will continue until next month. I do not believe that removing payment for the crossing is any answer to the tailbacks or the problems with which we must cope.

Bus Transport (Competition)

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of competition in bus transport since the passage of the Transport Act 1980.

Mr. Eyre: The removal in the Transport Act 1980 of unnecessary restrictions has meant a greater freedom of choice for travellers and a better deal on fares. I shall continue to give every encouragement to operators to respond to the needs of the public in this way.

Mr. Thornton: Do not my hon. Friend's remarks fully justify the Government's confidence in the 1980 Act? Does he agree that these benefits are of tremendous value to the fare-paying and travelling public?

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, with which I agree. I emphasise particularly the reduction in bureaucracy. The relaxation in licensing, the removal of unnecessary fares control and the replacement of vehicle licensing by operator licensing all represent genuine reductions in bureaucracy and have been welcomed by public transport operators.

Mr. Marks: What has been the effect in the rural areas, where public transport has declined considerably? Has there been an improvement?

Mr. Eyre: In some areas there has been a welcome development of mini-bus and other innovatory services. I am told that in some areas people are saying that tile service provided in that innovatory way is better than the stage services that were provided previously.

Mr. Cockeram: Is it not remarkable that those on low incomes travel by bus, which does not carry a subsidy, whereas those on higher incomes travel by train, which carries a massive subsidy?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend is not correct, because, by way of transport supplementary grant, £260 million a year is paid in subsidy to stage service operators.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister tell us how many million passenger miles of bus transport have been


withdrawn since the passage of the 1980 Act? If, as I imagine, he does not have the figure with him, will he place it in the Library?

Mr. Eyre: I shall see if I can comply with the hon. Gentleman's request. However, he knows that bus stage services have been declining over the past 30 years. We know the reasons for that process and for the development of alternative transport. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind in considering the figure.

Avon (Road Improvements)

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what major road improvements are planned for the county of Avon in 1983.

Mrs. Chalker: There are no proposals for new major improvements on my Department's trunk roads in Avon in 1983–84, although proposals are programmed in the years ahead. I understand that Avon county council will be completing improvements at the Tottendown junction, Bristol, and the Old Mixon railway bridge, Weston-Super-Mare, in 1983. Subject to the availability of funds in 1983–84, it is also proposing to start work on stage 2 of the Newfoundland Road improvement, Bristol, between the M32 and the inner circuit road.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend say what representations she has received about a new motorway junction between the M5 and the Avonmouth industrial areas? Will she also say whether she takes into account the overspending by councils on revenue account in deciding on capital grants for highway improvements?

Mrs. Chalker: I appreciate the problems that affect Avonmouth and the potential need for a new junction with the M5. Informal discussions have already taken place with the county council on this matter. I shall certainly consider any proposals that are designed to alleviate the problem of heavy traffic through the residential area of Avonmouth, and I shall talk to the county officials tomorrow about it. It is up to the county councils to decide their priorities in the TPPs that they put to the Department. If they put high revenue subsidies as a higher priority than road building, they know what to expect from the Department.

London (Transportation Report)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached in response to the report by the Transport Committee on the subject of public transport within the Greater London area.

Mr. David Howell: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) earlier today.

Mr. Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the proposals that he brings forward for the next Session contain some limitation on authorities such as the Greater London Council, which are recklessly spendthrift and impose unreasonable burdens on ratepayers in the shape of inequitable transport subsidies? Is he aware that that council, which already intends to overspend its target by £110 million, is about to embark on another costly advertising campaign to mislead the London public about the situation? Is he further aware that that campaign will cost £200,000 and is the second such campaign this year?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of that proposal. Having squandered ratepayers' money last year on a highly misleading advertising campaign, there is a proposal to do the same thing again. It has to be said, on behalf of those who wish to use London Transport services, that if the GLC proposes to take London Transport and Londoners through the same switchback as last year, with fares going down and then up and with vast inefficiencies, that is damaging to the future of London Transport and not at all in the interests of Londoners.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he would like London Transport fares to stay as they are, go up, or come down?

Mr. Howell: In my opinion, the fares have risen far too fast in London, due to the GLC's mismanagement and the chaotic effects on London's transport. It receives substantial subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers. It should be perfectly possible to run a stable London transport system, but the GLC has failed to do so.

Al-M1 Link

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current expected completion date for the A1-M1 link.

Mrs. Chalker: Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of funds, the section from Rothwell to east of Thrapston, including the Kettering southern bypass, should be completed in early 1987; the Catthorpe-Rothwell section and the Kettering northern bypass in late 1987; and the section from east of Thrapston to Brampton in early 1988.

Mr. Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she take on board the fact that most people who want the road to be built are anxious that it should not be a single carriageway road? In the long run, the right solution for this essential connection between the Al and the M1 is to have a dual carriageway. I hope, therefore, that we shall have a favourable response from my hon. Friend in due course.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows, I think, that since I met the Cambridgeshire county council in May it has done a further traffic count and that we are now reviewing the expected volumes of traffic with the council. If this section is designed as a single carriageway, it will be designed so that a second carriageway may be added later, when that is shown to be necessary.

Mr. Major: When does my hon. Friend expect to make that statement about whether a dual carriageway is justified? Is she aware that in and around the Cambridgeshire area it is feared that if the road is constructed as a single carriageway, an ever-increasing volume of traffic from the east coast ports to the west Midlands will continue to pass through rural villages on roads that were never constructed for and cannot accept traffic of that size and weight?

Mrs. Chalker: I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says, having travelled through some of the villages in his constituency only last Friday. I shall make the announcement as soon as I can, but I regret that it will have to be in the next Session.

Local Authority Fares

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his proposals for legislative changes over public transport fares charged by local authorities.

Mr. Eyre: The reply that I have carefully prepared says that I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter). However, as my hon. Friend was not present to receive that reply, let me say that the purpose of the legislation is to clarify the law on subsidy to take account of the balance of interests between passengers and ratepayers and also of national resources which are available for subsidy, and that it will be to provide a stable framework within which we can obtain better use of resources. All those aims will be of benefit to passengers and to those who are involved in transport operations.

Mr. Winnick: I am sure that that reply has told us a lot. Is the Minister aware that the idea of cheap bus fares is extremely popular, and rightly so, and that there is no reason at all why local authorities in the West Midlands and in the GLC area should be prevented from operating a cheap bus fare policy? That makes sense from every point of view. Why do not the Government allow local authorities to do what they wish?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate—and I agree with him—that reasonable subsidies are necessary for public passenger transport. However, a system that puts excessive burdens on ratepayers does much social harm and damages businesses that could provide employment. Furthermore, bearing in mind the total national circumstances, the Government must take a view on the amount of resources that are involved, because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there are other strong claims on those resources in connection with education, social welfare, and services for the elderly. All those factors need to be taken into account in allocating the total resources for those purposes.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before the Minister does that, will he sort out the anomaly created by the previous cheap fares policy, which resulted in London Transport declining to give refunds to British Rail and to many of my Southend constituents buying annual season tickets and being deprived of a refund by London Transport on the basis that the House of Lords ruled that it was illegal to charge cheap fares?

Mr. Eyre: I can only say that I regret that unfairness which stemmed from the GLC's original illegal action and which was disturbing to those at the receiving end.

Mr. Anderson: How effective is Government monitoring of the national effect of cutbacks in local government expenditure on local bus services? Are not the Government getting the message that there is a substantial loss of jobs, a shrinkage of routes and a much worse service to the local passenger?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman should await the legislation. We try to take reasonable account of the historic position of those local authorities that provide services to develop a system that will enable the better use of resources and, therefore, the provision of better services

where they are needed. The aim must be to avoid the waste of resources, since that cannot contribute to the economic strength of the nation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be guided by the clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

Northern Region (Dispersal)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he now has for the transfer of Civil Service posts to the Northern region.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): The Government's dispersal programme remains as announced in July 1979.

Mr. Dormand: Why do the Government persist in being so inflexible and dogmatic about the dispersal of jobs to the regions, particularly in view of the powerful arguments in the Hardman report? Will the Minister at least promise to re-examine the position? Will he comment on the speech that was made last week by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, when he said that the Government were determined to disperse to the regions the head office and the research and development activities of all types of industries? That would at least be a start, which we would welcome in the Northern region.

Mr. Hayhoe: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's persistence. He has asked similar questions for more than two years. The answer remains the same. The need to contain public expenditure rules out any further dispersal initiative in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Has the Minister read the speech to which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has just referred, which raised hopes in the regions? Will the Minister remember that the PSA was due to come to Middlesbrough? A site was laid aside for that in the middle of the town and it is still vacant. That was a devastating blow to Middlesbrough. A great deal of prestige was put by that site. Will the Minister consider that again and, in the light of his colleague's speech, consider moving to Middlesbrough any research and development or other stations that may be moved from the South-East and London?

Mr. Hayhoe: I fully understand the concern in Middlesbrough when the Government decided early on not to go ahead with the dispersal of 3,000 PSA jobs to the building that was being put up specially for them in Middlesbrough. My hon. Friend's speech is primarily a matter for his Department. However, the Government reviewed the Labour Government's plans under the Hardman report and we are sticking to the plans that were announced in July 1979.

Mr. Alan Williams: Do not the decisions on the PSA and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist—both of which were due to go to the Northern region—conflict utterly with the speech and statements made by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that they do. One must remember that four out of five civil servants are working


outside London. There is no basis for the suggestion that the Northern area does not have a fair share of civil servants.

Management Information and Accounting Systems

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made during the parliamentary recess on the introduction of management information and accounting systems in Departments of State.

Mr. Hayhoe: Progress continues along the lines described in the White Paper, "Efficiency and Effectiveness in the Civil Service", which sets all Departments clear objectives for the development of management systems and commits the Treasury and the Management and Personnel Office to publish a progress report by next July. Departments and the Treasury/MPO unit of civil servants and management consultants described in the White Paper have been pressing ahead with this work, some of which was described in written answers given to my hon. Friend on 28 July.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that the publication of the White Paper was extremely welcome? Will he go a little further than he has been able up to now and give an undertaking that all the findings will be published in full once the review has been completed in July? Furthermore, is my hon. Friend convinced that MINIS will enable Ministers to select between the differing priorities facing them?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend will recall that paragraph 30 of the White Paper makes it clear that Departments should disclose as much as possible of the information that they derive from the management systems. The Treasury and the MPO will look at that question specifically in the report that they make next July.

Mr. Foster: Is it not well acknowledged that the way to make any large organisation efficient is to decentralise it? Is that not a strong argument for devolving most of the decision-making to the regions? Will the Minister bear that in mind and send some more jobs to the Northern region?

Mr. Hayhoe: I can only admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in posing to this question a supplementary question that is relevant to the last question.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that Members of Parliament are as important to individual constituencies as Departments of State? Therefore, does he not agree that Parliament should sanction the purchasing by hon. Members of computers and other information systems, to enable them to do their job and to monitor the work of the House in constituency cases in the same way as Departments of State?

Mr. Hayhoe: That question is largely for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard it asked.

Mr. Alan Williams: Desirable as greater efficiency is, is not the effectiveness of officials dependent upon their ability to obtain decisions from their Ministers? Are not the Ministers' officials who are currently negotiating with the trade unions on the Megaw report hamstrung because up to now they have been unable to get decisions from the Government on how to respond to the report?

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on two clear counts. First, questions about Civil Service pay are for the Treasury and they would be for another occasion. Secondly, what he says about the Government in relation to the Megaw report is wrong.

Paid Appointments

Mr. Cryer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will review the rules governing civil servants taking paid appointments outside the Civil Service.

Mr. Hayhoe: Apart from a slight modification in 1980 these rules were last revised in 1975. The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service took evidence on this subject and made a number of suggestions in its fourth report. The Government have responded to all those and will consider any further comments or recommendations which the Committee might make before deciding upon the details of any changes to the present rules.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not time that something was done about senior civil servants, such as permanent secretaries and their ilk, who retire at the top of the tree and take up lavishly paid jobs when they have a lavish index-linked pension, and who are bought only because of the expertise and knowledge that they gained in Government service? For example, Sir John Garlick has obtained a directorship with the Abbey National building society. Surely that should be stopped, because it brings suspicion upon practising civil servants that they are arranging for a good job when they leave.

Mr. Hayhoe: The relevant rules were revised and put into effect by the Labour Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. Provided that there is no suspicion of impropriety, it is in the public interest that pag p 8people with experience of public administration should be able to move into business and industry. The continual sly sniping at senior public servants who have served Britain with diligence and distinction is unfounded.

Mr. Forman: Instead of worrying about people who leave the Civil Service to take up jobs in the private sector, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) does, would it not be far better for my hon. Friend to encourage more people from the private sector to bring their talents into the Civil Service, and to create more movement between the two sectors?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is highly desirable that there should be greater two-way traffic between the Civil Service and the private sector of industry and commerce. That would be beneficial for all concerned.

Mr. Joel Barnett: What rules has the Minister laid down for positive vetting when appointing civil servants? Is there any truth in the reports that civil servants are now being told, during positive vetting, that they must agree with the Government's monetarist policies?

Mr. Hayhoe: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, questions concerning security are not for me.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of what some of us regard as the disgraceful decision of the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to sell his memoirs at a very high price to a Sunday newspaper, will


the Minister consider, with the Home Secretary, whether the rules relating to civil servants could not be extended to some other senior public servants, who should not take such action?

Mr. Hayhoe: This may be the last Question Time of the Session, but to ask about matters that concern my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police is to go somewhat wide of the Civil Service.

Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer to the matter of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1982 which was raised with you yesterday by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other right hon. and hon. Members. I undertook to look at the points that had been raised.
No undertaking was given that this subject should be debated on the Floor of the House. However, on 22 July I undertook to
look into the possibility of taking the matter upstairs in the overspill".—[Official Report, 22 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 535.] 
That was in response to a request from the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and that undertaking has been met.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of right hon. and hon. Members. I also take account of the representation of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition evident in the motion on today's Order Paper that the matter should come to the Floor of the House. I am, therefore, agreeable to further discussion on this matter taking place through the usual channels.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Leader of the House was making a statement rather than raising a point of order, but I thank him anyway for it. Naturally, we are glad that discussion is to take place through the usual channels. However, we believe and understand that that discussion must result in a debate. The House is entitled to a debate on such an extremely important subject.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for considering the matter, and I hope that the discussions will lead to a full debate on the Floor of the House on this controversial subject.

Prorogation

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Session will end tomorrow and that Black Rod will come from the other place to knock three times, as usual. I believe that that demonstrates the House's independence. It is not a

pantomime or something that we simply tell visitors about, but has meaning. How can we ensure that deeply held grievances on the part of our constituents can be raised before the end of the Session? Many of my constituents—like the constituents of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—are deeply concerned that there may shortly be another exorbitant rent increase. Now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of an application under Standing Order No. 9 about rent increases. Tha hon. Gentleman cannot raise that subject as a point of order. Perhaps he will come to the point.

Mr. Winnick: Hon. Members can apply for a debate under Standing Order No. 9. I was unable to give you notice of my point, Mr. Speaker because I did not know what statements would be made. However, the Minister involved is surely under an obligation to come to the House to explain what is to be done when there is a genuine grievance at issue.

Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, I do not decide who makes statements.

Scottish Parliament Bill

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to today's Order Book, the first Order of the Day is the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament Bill, but it does not appear in the Orders of the Day or on today's Order Paper. I feel sure that there has been some oversight, and in order not to waste the time of the House, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. His item is No. 42 on today's Order Paper.

Television Licences (Bill)

Mr. Allen McKay: As there is to be no Business Statement today and as you know, Mr. Speaker, that the House overwhelmingly accepted my Concessionary Television Licences for Old Age Pensioners Bill, would it not be right for the Leader of the House to make a statement on when—as we cannot hold the Second Reading today—the will of the House will be carried out?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held at Luxembourg on Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 of October.
Agreement was reached yesterday on the implementation of the agreement of 25 May on refunds for the United Kingdom for 1982. This is subject to final confirmation within three days by the French Government. I am arranging for the text of the Council conclusions to be placed in the Library of the House together with a short explanatory note.
The main issue discussed by the Council was the method of financing the refunds. In particular, the agreement of 25 May provided for relief for Germany without specifying how the relief was to be given. This has now been satisfactorily resolved, and I am satisfied that the arrangements correctly implement the agreement of 25 May.
The Council had a useful discussion of East-West economic relations and of the Community dimension of the current discussions with the Americans. There was general support for the efforts being made to reach agreement on a framework for the handling of East-West trade and economic issues.
As the House will be aware, there remain certain commercial restrictions between, on the one hand, the United Kingdom and other countries of the Community, and, on the other, Argentina. We have discussed this with our partners and I am glad to report that the Council agreed that the Community should put to the Argentine Government immediately a proposal for the reciprocal lifting of these restrictions.
A ministerial conference with Spain in the margins of the Council made progress on a number of points. There will be a ministerial conference with the Portuguese in November, and the Council reviewed the preparations.
The Council agreed a mandate for the negotiation of the trade regime with Cyprus for 1983. There was also a meeting at ministerial level of the European Community Cyprus Association Council. The Community announced its agreement in principle to a second financial protocol for Cyprus to enter into effect on 1 January 1984.
The Council also discussed a number of important trade issues for which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade was present.
Points connected with the preparation of the Community position at the forthcoming GATT ministerial meeting were remitted to officials for further work. Meanwhile, the Community will continue to participate constructively in the preparations for the meeting on the basis of the guidelines endorsed by the Council in July.
On relations with Japan, the Council deplored the lack of progress so far in the consultations under the dispute settlement procedures of the GATT. A copy of the Council's conclusions is being placed in the Library of the House.
On steel, the United Kingdom pressed strongly for a tighter and more realistic import regime for 1983.
On textiles, the Commission reported on the negotiations for new bilateral agreements under the multifibre arrangements , and was given instructions to reopen negotiations where agreements remained to be concluded.

Mr. Eric Heifer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is very unsatisfactory? Apart from anything else, there are no figures in the third paragraph of the statement. I accept that the figures are given in the explanatory memorandum, but they are not before the House and so hon. Members cannot discuss them now. Therefore, we are unaware of the precise details of what was agreed at the meeting.
Is it not clear that what the Financial Times today referred to as a "tortuous Community solution" is, in reality, no solution at all, that the budgetary agreement is only for 1982 and that there are likely to be more tortuous Community discussions for a long time? Have not the Government again failed to obtain what the House voted for at least twice and what the Prime Minister said that she wanted—that the budgetary issue should be resolved speedily and permanently?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is just on three years since the Prime Minister said that she did not intend to play Lady Bountiful to the rest of the EEC'? Can he therefore tell us what is meant by the statement reported in The Guardian today? I do not know whether the report is accurate, so I put this as a serious question. The Guardian states that Britain's gross payments to the EEC budget, which had been forecast at £841 million earlier this year, will in fact approach £1 billion this year. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that? Does it mean that Britain's contribution is rising rather than falling as the Government suggest? Secondly, why did the Prime Minister tell Herr Kohl that the British Government would be pressing less urgently for a long-term solution? We are told that the 25 May agreement is being kept. That agreement stated categorically that a decision would be made before the end of November 1982 on a solution for 1983 and later. Has that now been abandoned?
Perhaps I may make one or two further comments on the right hon. Gentleman's statement. [Interruption.] It was a long statement which dealt with just about every issue except the budget. Very little was said about that main item.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about Argentina is most welcome. I trust that it will be a move towards stepping up trade relations with the whole of Latin America and with Argentina in particular.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to steel, but he did not mention that 67 per cent. of all our steel imports come from the EEC. What do the Government intend to do about that? Is it not time that we began to negotiate our way out of the Treaty of Rome instead of continuing to face the difficulties that membership of the Common Market brings?

Mr. Pym: The main item on the Council's agenda on this occasion was the implementation of the 25 May agreement. The longer -term budget negotiations were not part of the agenda. We shall be receiving proposals from the Commission on that next month for 1983 and later years and it will be on the agenda for the November council, but I should make it quite clear that it was not on the agenda on this occasion. I made my statement as brief as possible in view of the vast range of subjects that were


taken, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have further details about the budgetary arrangements perhaps I may summarise the situation as follows.
There are four elements. First, the basic British refund will be about £600 million gross. Secondly, the Germans will receive their basic refund also out of the 1982 budget. Under the own resources system, we have to contribute to that in the first instance and arrangements were agreed yesterday to compensate us for that. Thirdly, the risk-sharing payments, including those arising from the German refund, will also be brought forward and will be made from the 1983 budget and not from the 1984 budget as originally agreed. Fourthly, the Commission has undertaken to transfer the whole of our £600 million from its cash balances in other member States rather than running down its cash balances here as was the case in previous years.
I believe that those four elements add up to a solution that meets the requirements of the 25 May agreement. I think that it is a bit hot for the hon. Gentleman to chide the Government for not having taken steps to deal with the budget refund when the Labour Government did nothing about it at all and we inherited a situation in which no progress had been made. So far, we have got back £1,685 million gross and we have now negotiated more. I think that that is a very good start.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions to run for 20 minutes. That is a very good run, as there are two other major statements to follow.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with the budget stem from the Labour Government's disastrous renegotiations? To keep the matter in perspective, does he also agree that the budget contribution must be seen as part of our contribution to the membership of a Community which alone in an extremely dangerous world in which protectionism is running out of control can maintain some effective protection policies for British industry on a temporary basis?

Mr. Pym: The Government have always made it clear that, whereas on a strictly fairly calculated basis we might expect to be net beneficiaries rather than contributors, we have none the less accepted that we shall be and are prepared to be modest net contributors. Nevertheless, we believe that it is extremely important to reorganise and rearrange the financing of the Community so that it will be fair not only to Britain but to all other member States. It would be extremely helpful if it were possible to achieve a long-term solution, and that is what I am trying to achieve all the time. I hope that it can be done.

Mr. Geraint Howells: We appreciate the Foreign Secretary's good work in relation to the European budget, but does he agree that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money could be saved if our surpluses in Europe were sold to other countries and not to the Russians? Does he agree with his Cabinet colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that no surpluses should be sold to the Russians in the future?

Mr. Pym: That issue has certainly been most carefully discussed in the Community and we all agreed that it

would be quite wrong to sell food or indeed other goods to the Russians on a subsidised basis. There is a problem in disposing of the surplus food, but it would not be right to sell it to the Soviet Union on a subsidised basis.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As it is clear that on the EEC budget the agreement is for one year only, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the gross United Kingdom payment to the EEC budget in the following year if there is no relief?

Mr. Pym: No, I cannot yet say that, but it will be a modest contribution. It is not possible to quantify it precisely as the year is not yet over.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is it not absurd that the countries represented at the meeting continue to grant export credits to the Soviet Union and its satellites which enable them to modernise their industry at rates of interest far below those available to our own manufacturers? In the light of the Polish debt experience particularly, what steps are being taken to remedy the situation?

Mr. Pym: In the discussions among NATO Foreign Ministers in Canada about a month ago and in subsequent discussions between ourselves and the United States, we are coming to a position of agreement that it is quite wrong for trade to be undertaken with the Soviet Union on credit terms that are in effect a subsidy and too advantageous to that country. That is one of the issues that will form part of the framework of future trade agreements with the West that we are trying to agree among ourselves. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this practiice should not be allowed to continue, and we are working in that direction.

Mr. Ben Ford: Which textile bilaterals are outstanding and what is the remit of the negotiators?

Mr. Pym: They are those with the ASEAN countries and with some of the dominant suppliers. I think that that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread relief and satisfaction that the substantial gross refund of some £600 million will be paid not only in full but, apparently, ahead of the time expected? Will he confirm that, although it may be unreasonable to expect a long-term solution by the end of next month, the Government remain committed to achieving a favourable long-term solution as soon as possible and that the Prime Minister herself may discuss this during her forthcoming visit to Germany?

Mr. Pym: I am working in every way that I can to achieve that long-term solution. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may raise it at the Council, but that is still some six weeks away and we had better see how we get on in the meantime. A number of commentators and others believe that a solution will not be achieved next month, but I shall continue to try to achieve it. I should point out that a number of member countries believe that a permanent solution to the problem is unlikely to be achieved before the Community is enlarged by the accession of Spain and Portugal and before there is further debate about the 1 per cent. resource. That may be a year or two away. Despite that, and despite the views held by other countries, I am still trying, as the Community knows and as hon. Members know, to achieve a long-term solution which would be beneficial not only to Britain but to the whole Community.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that since any refund for next year, let alone the long-term solution, will depend entirely on the good will of the other members of the EEC, we are in effect a client State? Will he also confirm that the £600 million refund can be spent only on public projects in this country which are permitted by Brussels?

Mr. Pym: I think it is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide how the money will be spent. My task is to secure the implementation of the 25 May agreement. The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is no agreement yet about the refund of our contribution for 1983 and later. That will be high on the agenda for the next Council meeting.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In view of all the refunds that are being made, will my right hon. Friend tell the House who is paying for the European situation because the House would be delighted to know? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the multi-fibre arrangement is a catastrophic disaster, that the bilaterals are not working and that the general agreement on tariffs and trade is anything but an agreement with which the British people agree? Many textile companies in Britain are being driven out of business—not least the Northgate Group which is a subsidiary of the Courtaulds apparel group—not because of inefficient management, bad industrial relations or bad on-costs but because of unfair competition. When will the Government and the European Community do something about it?

Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend is quite right about the textile industry which is a source of anxiety to him and to many other hon. Members. There is a tough negotiation about the multi-fibre arrangement in progress. That is likely to be substantially tougher than the second multi-fibre arrangement, but it has not yet been concluded. We are making the best possible progress.
I agree with my hon. Friend about unfair competition. The issue of how we can improve the arrangements to ensure that the competition is conducted on a fair basis and not an unfair one is of major importance to the Government. We are giving particular attention to the matter.

Dr. David Owen: With unfair trading, the Community's commitment to free trade becomes a mockery. While I agree with the Council and the Foreign Secretary's statement deploring the lack of progress with Japan, to which might be added Spain and particularly the question of cars, I should like to know when action will be taken. Surely the European Community must within the next few weeks use its economic, political and trading strength to insist on fair trading and to take action.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. A great deal of attention is being given within the Community to preparation for the GATT ministerial meeting, which we regard as extremely important in the context of the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in regard to the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations, the Council of Ministers has rejected any weakening of the negotiating mandate? If there have been any changes or weakening, will the Foreign Secretary say what those changes are?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Commission has been asked to draw up contingency plans in the event of those negotiations not being concluded by the end of this year? Finally, in view of the great importance of this matter to 600,000 workers, when will the House have an opportunity to cross-examine the Minister on it?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. I shall give him the assurance for which he asks on the first point. There is and there will be no weakening—in fact, the mandate for negotiations with our dominant suppliers was reaffirmed without alteration.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question, contingency plans are being prepared but it would be inappropriate to give any details a: this stage.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: In the many areas that my right hon. Friend covered in his discussions, which of those have been of benefit to this country because of our membership of the group discussing them and which. if any, have had the opposite effect?

Mr. Pym: All of them gained from the benefit of being conducted and dealt with on a Community basis rather than individually. At a glance, I do not think that any of them would have been easier or more effective had we done it on our own.

Mr. Bob Cryer: First, does the Minister accept that any refunds are payments of our own money back to us?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that at an early stage in the new Session the Minister for Trade, who has been giving him all the details of the MFA, makes a statement to the House? It is disgraceful that this crucial arrangement for the textile industry is dealt with only as part of a massive statement covering a huge range of subjects. Is it not reasonable for the House to know what contingency plans exist if the MFA breaks down? Surely having contingency plans is a negotiating posture to ensure that a strengthened MFA is negotiated. More than 1,000 jobs have been lost in the Keighley textile industry since the Tories came to office. We wish to ensure that no more jobs will be lost.

Mr. Pym: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "No". On his second point, the Minister for Trade, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), made a number of statements to the House. Indeed, the Leader of the House, in his former capacity, did the same thing. We have taken particular care to keep the House informed.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's third point about contingency plans. I refer him to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) a few moments ago. It would be inappropriate at this stage to go into further detail, but I acknowledge, as the House does, the serious position in the textile industry and its implications for jobs.

Mr. John Page: I listened, as always, with care, respect and admiration to my right hon. Friend's statement. He said something about the Community deploring something about Japan. Will he expand on it so that we may know a little more about it?

Mr. Pym: I said that the Council deplored the lack of progress in the consultations under the disputes settlement procedures of the GATT. On her recent visit to Japan, my


right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a number of meetings and continually reiterated the importance of trade relations with Japan in correcting some of the present imbalances.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In his discussions about Argentina and trade with Argentina, did the Foreign Secretary spell out the long-term future of the Falkland Islands? If he is to have discussions with his European partners, is it not time that we had a full statement, with all the various implications, since the subject is likely to be raised again in the United Nations?

Mr. Pym: I have kept my colleagues in the Community fully informed of our position with regard to Argentina and the Falkland Islands. They are aware of the position from our point of view.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of my right hon. Friend's rather depressing words, despite all his efforts, about the prospects for a long-term budget settlement, is it the Government's intention to pay the full estimated net rebate of about £1,000 million for 1983 in the absence of such an agreement, or will the Government be prepared to withhold contributions as a bargaining weapon?

Mr. Pym: We have not yet started discussing and negotiating about 1983 and later. Of course, it is my intention to achieve a negotiated settlement, and we must see how we get on. We have only just completed the details of the 1982 settlement. I think that is satisfactory.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that when the Prime Minister came back from one of the previous meetings of the "top ten", or whatever it is called, she said that there had been discussions about the rescheduling of debt. At that time, 26 countries were involved, but the number has grown to 40 with debts of about $650 billion. During the recent discussions—the Foreign Secretary did not mention this—has there been any joint approach by the Common Market countries which together are supposed to deal with these matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his statement, or any future statements by him, will be vetted by the Prime Minister's Foreign Office spy, Sir Anthony Parsons? The House and the country wish to know.

Mr. Pym: I am giving the House a report and answering questions on the Foreign Affairs Council which has just taken place. While the subject to which the hon. Gentleman first referred has been discussed in the past, it was not discussed this week.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on the Conservative

Benches congratulate him on achieving a speedy deal on the £600 million rebate from the EEC, apparently without any acrimony? There is much concern about the steel industry because of the belief that there is dumping of steel from the EEC. Is there not a danger that the £600 million will have to be spent on shoring up our steel industry unless an arrangement can be made with Europe to prevent further dumping of steel? Can my right hon. Friend give us any hope?

Mr. Pym: I can give my hon. Friend hope. The issue is still a major topic for discussion. I shall discuss the point that he raises in greater detail with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but we are doing all that we can to bring about improvements.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the European steel regime relies on countries complying with voluntary arrangements? As a number of plants are mooted for closure nationally, should not the agreements be mandatory? Is he pressing for that in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Pym: That could be considered, but voluntary restraint agreements provide a better means of controlling trade in steel than other more disruptive measures, such as anti-dumping action. The topic is receiving a great deal of attention.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the danger of a universal slide into protectionism the most important single problem facing industrial nations trying to bring an end to the world recession? Was the issue discussed as a general problem at the meeting? What is the EEC view, and what is our view?

Mr. Pym: The matter was discussed, albeit briefly. I entirely agree that it is an important topic. The danger of a slide into protectionism could turn the deep recession into something worse. It will be a major objective of the GATT ministerial meeting in November to prevent that from happening and to maintain the open trading system which has been the basis of the vastly increased prosperity that many countries have enjoyed.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a successful trip to Japan to discuss our deficit in manufactured goods of £2,000 million with that country, will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he had with our European partners about the running deficit in manufactured goods with the Community of £5,000 million and the devastation that that is causing to our industry? What does he intend to do about it, particularly as much of it arises from unfair trading and competition within the Community?

Mr. Pym: The trade figures are reasonably satisfactory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but of course they can always be better.

Fisheries Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 25 and 26 October. At the meeting, I represented the United Kingdom, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State in my Department.
I am pleased to report to the House that nine members of the Council reached agreement on a common fisheries policy, based upon final proposals from the Commission which included important gains for the United Kingdom. In the case of Denmark, final agreement is dependent upon the approval of its Government and Parliament, which is to be sought within the next 10 days. Should that approval not be forthcoming, we and the other eight Governments of the Community expect to implement the regime as between ourselves on the basis of national measures approved by the Commission. We hope, however, that the Danish Government, who currently guard the important responsibility of the Presidency of the Community, will gain the approval of their Parliament to this common policy.
The Commission's final proposals showed significant improvements over the proposals that I previously reported to the House. There were increases in the total quotas for the United Kingdom in both absolute and proportionate terms. Improved quotas were obtained for North Sea cod, west coast haddock, saithe and the very important west coast herring. The Commission rejected the demands of Denmark to obtain licences in the Shetland box, but the final Commission proposals made an amendment to the boundaries of the box which reduced its size by 6 per cent. The House should know that in the most recent year for which complete data are available, 34,000 tonnes of fish were landed by Shetland fishermen but only 92 tonnes were caught by them in this area. The Shetlanders can of course continue to fish there in future.
The House will know that I have always undertaken that I would only approve an agreement that had the approval of the British fishing industry. When the Commission's final proposals were made I met the leaders of the three fishing industry organisations and all three asked me to accept these final proposals.
The quotas that we have obtained compare favourably with even the best level of fishing in recent years and are far in excess of the average levels. On the question of access to our coastal areas, I am pleased to inform the House that we have succeeded in reducing or eradicating historic rights within our 12-mile limit over 73 per cent. of our coastline where these rights currently exist. We have obtained a significant improvement not just in the post-accession position but in the pre-accession position. We have also obtained rights in the coastal waters of other member States of critical importance to our fishermen, with particularly important rights in the coastal waters of Ireland and Heligoland.
On conservation, the package gives us a new regime on a permanent basis which meets our needs, including the vital Norway pout box. Our national measures will now be implemented by the Community. This will be, for the first time, backed by an effective control system based on

the United Kingdom proposals. A combination of these conservation and control measures will secure for the British fishing industry the prospect of improvements in fish stocks instead of the decline in stocks which it has suffered in the past. An advantageous system of scrapping, modernisation and construction grants will also now be provided. If, as I hope, the agreement is approved by all 10 member countries within the next 10 days, we shall have at last achieved for the fishing industry a firm foundation for the future with an agreement that has its approval.
These new measures, if finally approved, will of course not operate until next January. As the House will be aware, I have been considering the current financial position of the fishing industry. Whilst I am pleased to inform the House that in the first eight months of this year there has been a 16 per cent. improvement in the industry's receipts compared with a similar period in 1981, there have also been additional costs, particularly for fuel. I have therefore decided that it is important to provide further aid to the industry for 1982 to see that it is in a viable position to take advantage of the opportunities that the common fisheries policy will provide Aid of £15 million will be provided, and I shall give the details Ito the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am afraid that about the only thing on which I can congratulate the Minister is his new expertise in sublety in a most dishonest presentation of what has been achieved.
Are the Government satisfied with the extraordinary proposal that if agreement is not forthcoming from the Danes the other nine, members of the Community will go ahead without them? Is that any different from the veto proposition to which we have objected from the moment of entry to the Common Market? Is it not only another form of veto? Will the Minister seriously think again? If we can operate a national policy with the blessing of the EEC, is there any reason why we should not activate national policies without it?
Does the Minister recall that at the time of the election the Prime Minister promised that there would be an extensive further area of preference? That is now camouflaged in the curious wording:
On the question of access to our coastal areas, I am pleased to inform the House that we have succeeded in reducing or eradicating historic rights within our 12-mile limit over 73 per cent. of our coastline.
Does that mean that within the 12-mile limit 73 per cent. of the present level of fishing by Common Market countries is no longer to occur? What does the statement mean? Have we not retreated from the position supported by the whole House of a 50-mile preference to one of only a 12-mile preference and a six-mile exclusive? Is it not a complete surrender?
The Shetland box has been further eroded by 6 per cent., with the curious comment by the Minister that that does not matter because only 92 tonnes of recent fishing by Shetland fishermen came from those waters. But is there not another important aspect here—conservation arid preservation—which has gone by the board? We are told that that is compensated for by quotas. However, there are already anxieties in Scottish waters about the level of some of the total allowable catches. They are not satisfactory and are already too high. They have been characterised as "paper" fish. Does riot that mean that that can lead only to further overfishing in British waters?
Why has the Secretary of State, in this last syllable of recorded time, come up with £15 million of aid to the industry? Why now, when the industry has been crying out for aid all this year? Is not the real reason that the Government want to say to the House that the fishermen's organisations have supported the deal? He said that those organisations asked the Government to accept the deal. That was done with a pistol to the organisations' heads. [HON. MEMBERS :"Oh."] I shall tell Conservative Members what the fishermen's organisations say. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations said that it is a poor and inadequate deal.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: What about the Scottish Fishermen's Federation?

Mr. Buchan: I shall deal with that in a moment. The federation representatives said that they were faced with a "Catch 22" situation. It was made crystal clear to them that if they did not accept and if we had to go it alone, they would not have the protection that the present deal gives. Is it not an indictment of the Government that they could not give the British fishermen adequate protection if we were to go it alone?
The national federation said that it was compelled to accept the deal with "considerable reservations and reluctance". When I talked to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation I asked whether it was saying that it accepted the deal under duress. It replied, "Yes". The truth is that the deal is not simply a surrender. It is a final endorsement of continual surrender. Such surrender is almost a national policy for this Government.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points and for making the accusation that £15 million of aid was provided to British fishermen to buy their agreement to the package. At the beginning of this week I saw the leaders of the fishing industry. I told them that this week I would announce £15 million of national aid. I said that that aid would be provided whether or not the package was agreed or they agreed to it. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his accusation.
With regard to whether the deal is the same as the vote that was taken on the common agricultural policy, of course it is not. With regard to national measures approved by the Commission, such action has been taken in fishing measures over many years, including during the period of office of the previous Government. Therefore, that is normal practice. We shall not impose in Danish waters measures that will affect them in their own waters. The deal will safeguard the waters of the other nine member States.
The statement is clear about access. At present other countries have historic rights in the six to 12-mile limit around our coastline. We also have important historic rights in six to 12-mile areas on the coastlines of other countries, which are essential to our fishermen. In 73 per cent. of the former areas the position is either improved or eradicated, as the statement says. Therefore, in terms of our coastal area we have a better position than at any time in history, as a result of the agreement.

Mr. John Prescott: Before entry.

Mr. Walker: Indeed. With his fishing interests, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the provisions are better than the ones that we had before entry. I am sure that he will applaud that.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West regretted the 6 per cent. reduction in the Shetland box. That is remarkable, coming from someone who, when I last made a statement, said that the Shetland box was useless. I am glad to know that he thinks that the 94 per cent. that we have retained is of immense importance.
With regard to overfishing, I am glad to say that we have obtained extra total allowable catch proposals for fishing stocks such as haddock and cod as a result of agreements on TACs with the Norwegian Government.

Mr. Buchan: I must make another intervention. The intemperate nature of the Secretary of State's reply suggests the inadequacy of his case. I wish to wipe out the comment that he made about me when he referred to the Shetland box. It was untrue. I said no such thing.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman admitted that my diagnosis of the sleight of hand about the 73 per cent. of protection inside the 12-mile limit was right and that the initial formulation of his paper was wrong? If an aid offer in the week when the fishermen have been compelled to accept an otherwise bad deal is not bribery and corruption, I do not know what is. Is it not simply the truth that, not having got a 200-mile zone, which we would have outside the Common Market—

Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that an hon. Member should accuse a Minister of bribery and corruption?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was making a general observation. I am sure that he would not seek to make any imputation on the honour of the Secretary of State. I know that he will make that clear.

Mr. Buchan: My observation was accurate, but metaphorical. The Government have now retreated from the previous position agreed by the House for 50 miles dominant preference to a six-mile exclusive zone and only six miles of dominant preference. It is a shoddy, shabby deal. I am ashamed that the British Government should put it before the House without giving us the opportunity to vote on it before it was agreed in Brussels.

Mr. Walker: The tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was insulting to the leaders of the fishing industry. He is saying that the three organisations, which had the freedom to tell me that they did not accept this package, decided to back it. He quoted what fishing leaders have said. I was present last night when 40 fishing leaders, including the leaders of all the main national organisations, not only thanked Ministers for what they had achieved but warmly applauded it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on the statement. We shall not debate the matter today. If questions are succinct, many more hon. Members will be able to ask questions.

Mr. J. Grimond: If the Danes do not accept the deal, will the proposals be enforced against them? Does not the slice of the Shetland box contain a high proportion of prime fish for human consumption and are not most of the fish that are caught


landed in Shetland itself? If so, will the Secretary of State take that into account when he considers the licences for fishing off Shetland, which have caused some concern? I also wish to ask about the historic rights that are to be reduced or eradicated. Are the rights that are claimed off the coast of Northumberland to be reduced?

Mr. Walker: With regard to the Shetland box, the square that has been eliminated from the original proposals is an area where there is a major concentration of Danish fishing for industrial purposes. The Danes are entitled to carry out that fishing in the area. I gave the last figures that are available in records on fishing by the Shetlanders in that area. The fishing in that locality will be able to continue as before.
There is no change in those arrangements. Obviously, I should like to have kept the box in. However, the supervision of licensing arrangements that existed for fishing for edible fish will not be in that category although they will be in the rest of the Shetland box.
The improvement that we have made with regard to the 12-mile limit north of the Minch, which did not exist before, is of considerable importance to Shetland fishermen. Scottish fishermen very much wanted that change.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will know that the proposals for a substantial increase in the west herring stock is of considerable importance to 14 quite important boats in the Shetland Islands. One of the reasons why Scottish fishermen accepted the change in the box was the substantial improvement in quotas for their purposes.
There has been an improvement on one stretch of the Northumberland coast; the existing position remains for the rest of the coast.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a settlement of the common fisheries policy on the terms that he has announced is nothing but abject surrender? Is he aware that at an earlier stage even some of his hon. Friends were demanding a 50-mile preference zone and a 12-mile exclusion zone? Does he agree that that has gone by the board? Does he further agree that on the terms that he has announced it will be impossible to maintain a viable fishing industry, even at the level of recent years? Is he aware that that has normally been within a 200-mile limit and that British fishermen are now being confined to less than 5 per cent. of their own waters?
Is the Minister aware that he could have announced the financial aid, that the industry so badly needed, earlier? Does he agree that it is now only a bribe—which is what it was intended to be—and a funeral grant?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased that the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry are better informed than the leader of the Scottish National Party. They are well aware that they have gained substantial improvements in the coastal zone and quotas. Perhaps of prime importance for Scottish fishermen is that for the first time they have an effective system of control that will enable stocks to improve rather than decline. It is for a combination of these valid reasons that Scottish fishermen supported the agreement.

Sir Patrick Wall: The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Minister of

State on a successful fight that has brought us within an ace of a common fisheries policy that is acceptable to the industry. I understand that 73 per cent. of the six to 12-mile zone will be reserved for British fishermen. What percentage of water outside the 12-mile limit will be available to British fishermen? How will those waters be controlled to prevent foreigners exceeding quotas as they have done in the past? On behalf of the distant water ports I hope that a good proportion of the support to be given to the industry will be given to distant water fishing vessels, whose numbers have been decimated by the 200-mile limit.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I also thank him for thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who, for the past three and a half years, has played a major part in obtaining the agreement. With regard to the six to 12-mile limit, I repeat what I said clearly in my statement. We have reduced or eradicated historic rights within the 12-mile limit over 73 per cent. of our coastline. That is of considerable importance to British fishermen.
With regard to fishing outside that area, the preference is obtained on the basis by which quotas are granted. It is therefore of immerse importance to the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir. P. Wall). It is important that we have retained, as a quota, 47 per cent. of the North Sea cod stock. I hope that that will assist my hon. Friends constituents.

Mr. James Johnson: Any Minister who answers questions about EEC affairs has my deepest sympathy. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was curious and puzzling. The Minister says that he has not merely the support but the assent of the leaders of the industry. Is he aware that that is not so in Hull? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman met Tom Boyd or others, but they believe that this arrangement will be the demise and death knell and of our port of Hull. Is he aware that I therefore object to what he said earlier?
The £15 million is inadequate and should be doubled. I make a plea for the distant water fleet. The Minister knows as well as I that we have big boats of 90 metres that have been modernised but have never been to sea. They are lying in West Hull docks. Last time round, he gave us £53,000 per boat. Never mind the lads on the deck and the unions—our leaders expected rather more this time.

Mr. Walker: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the problems of the long distance fishing fleet. Both he and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) know how that fleet was halved in the five years before I became Minister.
With regard to aid, the quotas that some Opposition Members describe as inadequate are substantially better than the catches for the 1973–78 period. During the five years of the previous Administration there was £13·9 million of special aid for the fishing industry. So far, under the present Government £58 million has been given in aid. The aid that I am announcing this week is itself more than was given during the entire period of the previous Government.

Sir Walter Clegg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only today I spoke on the telephone to a fisherman who was at the talks, who told me that he was


highly impressed by the way in which the Minister and his team and officials have handled the negotiations? No one can say that my right hon. Friend had an easy hand to play.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that money additional to the £15 million would be available for restructuring. Presumably it is to come from the EEC. Does he agree that that is what we now need as we have a base from which restructuring can take place?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The importance of knowing the quotas that the British fishing industry will be able to fish with security is that it enables Governments to decide on restructuring policies that make sense for the future requirements of the industry. In this package the Commission's restructuring proposals will be worth 250 million ECUs. That is an important contribution.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister agree that he has done his case no good by the way in which he has glossed it and pretended that the fishermen asked him to accept the settlement? Is he aware that fishermen in Aberdeen say that they accepted the agreement with considerable reservations and doubts? It would have been better if he had been honest with the House and said that the agreement was the best he could get, that he was sorry but that we must accept it.

Mr. Walker: Opposition Members have constantly pressed me to say whether, if the leaders of the fishing industry had rejected an agreement, I would also have rejected it. I always undertook to say "Yes" to that. When I called in the leaders of the industry yesterday to discuss the final terms that were available I told them that it was up to them to decide whether to accept them. [Interruption.] Until now, the Opposition have wanted the industry to have the final say. Now that the industry has had the final say, the Opposition do not like it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister answer the question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the steps that will be taken to enforce the agreement against the Danes if they do not accept it within 10 days? Can the Minister tell us anything about the relative increase in the British quota? What domestic steps will he take to increase the vigorous policing that will be necessary?

Mr. Walker: The regulation that provides for enforcement and inspection by the Commission will come into effect on 1 January, whether the Danes agree or not. That is an important step forward. We expect the Commission to approve measures that we take to protect our quotas and the 12-mile limit and to give us the legal right to enforce the proposals.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Despite what the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether Mr. Willie Hay, the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, a Member of the British Empire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and an outstanding leader of the fishing industry, asked my right hon. Friend to accept the agreement? He was speaking on behalf of the federation and the Scottish pelagic fleet, whose quota has been increased considerably.

Mr. Walker: The entire executive committee of the Scottish fishing organisation came to Luxembourg. When

the final proposals were made by the Commission, the executive committee asked for time to discuss them. A full meeting took place and the committee members said that they wished me to accept the package.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: In his specious and devious statement, the Minister has announced the selling of the birthright of the British fishing industry, not for a mess of pottage but for a pottage of paper fish. Will the Minister confirm that an agreement by majority vote is not a settlement, because it can be altered by majority vote? His statement that the fishing organisations asked him to accept the final proposals conceals the disgraceful blackmailing of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations by holding a pistol to its head. If the Minister had had the guts to use the tactics and blackmail against the French and the Danes that he used against the British industry, we should have obtained a much better settlement.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are even worse than his book. The hon. Gentleman insulted the leaders of the NFFO, but the president of that organisation, at the end of proceedings yesterday evening, thanked me for all that we had achieved.

Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Minister of State. However, will they bear it in mind that the Opposition's reaction shows that the deal must be good? In the southwest of England fishermen are worried about Spanish entry into the Common Market and fishing by Spanish boats off our shores. How will the agreement deal with that? Will my right hon. Friend have talks with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we have adequate planes and ships to deal with policing?

Mr. Walker: We shall ensure that the surveillance services continue at a high standard. In view of the size of the Spanish fleet it was important for us to reach an agreement among the Ten before we negotiated with the Spaniards.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will the Minister accept that at least some hon. Members appreciate the almost impossible task of satisfying all the fishermen in Britain all the time, especially the Scottish fishermen? However, does he recognise that there is anxiety about how long the agreement will last? Will he take on board the priority of the enforcement policies which, with good management, could ensure more fish for all fishermen?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's important questions. Now that we have better quotas than for some years past, it is important to enforce them and to know for how long they will last. It will be 20 years before the next major review, so the agreement is long-term. For the first time we have a regulation, proposed by the United Kingdom, that empowers the Commission to inspect and to certify that each member country complies with the agreement.

Sir Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated not only on the hard, tough and successful negotiations that he and his colleagues carried out in the Common Market, but on his straightforward and honest statement today? In addition to the security that must be felt by the British fishing industry, which knows that the way ahead has now been


laid down clearly, will the available money be used in ports such as Scarborough to help not only the boats but the facilities through which they operate?

Mr. Walker: The facilities at Scarborough can be considered constructively. The importance of a firm agreement, with quotas and access proposals better than we have enjoyed for a long time, is that we can now decide sensibly about capital investment to the benefit of the entire industry.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one further hon. Member from each side, and then the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Minister aware that the reduction in the Shetland box is only the latest in a string of concessions that he has made during the past two years? Is that concession supported by the leaders of the Shetland fishermen, some of whom were in Luxembourg, and can the Minister confirm that a future settlement will be voted upon in the House before Christmas?

Mr. Walker: Regulations to implement the agreement will be put to the House in the normal way. I should prefer a major debate on the matter in the House, because I wish to discuss, in more detail than I have been able during the past 10 years, the Hague agreements. The Shetland island fishermen whom I met yesterday disagreed about the 6 per cent. reduction in their box.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the South-East fisheries districts and many of the inshore fisheries districts along the south coast will welcome his announcement today? Will he also accept that the proposals represent the practical solution for which we have been waiting since our entry into the Common Market? My right hon. Friend began with the position of fishing up to the sea shore. In view of the temptations that the results will provide to foreign fisherman, what does he expect the Commission to do in foreign ports to ensure that policing is correctly carried out?

Mr. Walker: The Commission will set up an inspectorate, which has been warmly welcomed by our fishermen. For the South-East, which has an important fishing industry, nothing is more important than proper enforcement and control.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Why, given the unanimous and frequently expressed view of the House, has the Minister accepted changes that are contrary to everything on which the House has voted? They are contrary to the terms upon which his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to the polls in May 1979, when she demanded an extensive further area of preference. Why does the Minister deny to the House what he has allowed to the Danish Parliament—an opportunity to vote on the quality of the proposals before he accepts them?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a short memory. I remind the House that there was a debate in July when the proposals—[Interruption.]

Mr. Bruce Milan: Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Craigton) rose—

Mr. Walker: It was in the right hon. Gentleman's time, so there is even more reason for him to remember it. In July the House approved the measures that were then available, and I am glad to say that we now have better measures.

Britoil

The Secretary' of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the privatisation of Britoil.
Almost exactly a year ago, I told the House that I hoped to transfer the entire oil-producing business of the British National Oil Corporation to the private sector this year. These plans were set out in full and debated at length during the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act. That Act is now on the statute book. Britoil has been set up as BNOC subsidiary, and the oil-producing business has been transferred to it. As from next Monday, the shares in Britoil will be directly owned by the Government.
The way will thus soon be clear for an underwritten offer for sale of 51 per cent. of the shares in the company. Subject to market conditions, I intend the flotation to take place next month. The choice between a conventional fixed price offer and a tender must be made nearer the time. I will inform the House, as I have undertaken to do. If the sale is by tender, consideration will be given to the inclusion of special arrangements for small investors to buy shares at the striking price, without having to bid a specific price in advance. In either case, payment for the shares will be in two instalments, spread over a period of several months. The offer will also include special arrangements to encourage small investors not only to participate, but to retain a long-term interest in the company.
Finally, arrangements will be made to encourage Britoil's own employees to take a stake in their company. BNOC employees, too, will enjoy the right to make preferential applications for Britoil shares.
As the House knows, the privatisation of Britoil will in no way affect the system of participation agreements, which will remain in place, under 100 per cent. Government control, as a means of safeguarding our national security of supply. But what it will do is enable the people of Britain to take a direct personal stake in the North Sea. It will create an independent British oil company free to seize the opportunities open to it. And it will substantially reduce the size of the public sector in an area where State ownership has no rational justification whatsoever.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have constantly asked for a statement on the sale of shares in Britoil. The one that we have had is brief, and confirms our worst fears. Accountability to Parliament in the Act is minimal. The Public Accounts Committee cannot look at what the Minister proposed to do until afterwards. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a number of questions to try to clothe the brief statement.
Valuable public assets are to be sold off. The Secretary of State will soon he announcing the underwritten offer. Is he aware that there is wide disbelief that he can even contemplate selling shares in Britoil next month, which will result in their being sold at much below their real value? Is he aware that all informed comment, other than from Mr. Shelbourrte—I remind him of the International Energy Agency report—says that this is the wrong time to sell? National assets will be undersold. The PAC will eventually have to investigate, on behalf of the House


how far the Secretary of State will meet his criterion of selling only when the conditions are right. That is what he said. He realises—does he?—that he will have to answer for his actions.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision to issue part-paid shares raises a basic and important question? If that procedure had been followed with Amersham International, it would have doubled the immediate profit to purchasers for the amount that they actually staked—to use, quite correctly, a gambling term. Amersham was bad enough. The right hon. Gentleman's decision in this case could make the rake-off far greater than it would otherwise have been. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
On the question of underwriting, the Government now hold 100 per cent. of the shares. After the sale, certainly in the first instance, the Government will hold 49 per cent. Why not give an instruction that any unsold shares be kept by the Government? There is no need to pay what has been estimated as £20 million to the underwriters in the City. In any event, I remind him of the Tenth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, which said:
We are concerned that, in the course of this re-examination"—
that is the Secretary of State's job—
the Treasury should look again at the practice of underwriting such sales. In the first place, as the DOI acknowledged, the decision to underwrite is bound to influence the price of a share issue.
I shall not quote at length, as I am sure that the Secretary of State has read the report. However, it continues:
We therefore trust that the adoption for sale of publicly owned shares of this aspect of normal City practice will be very carefully re-examined.
Has the right hon. Gentleman done that?
The right hon. Gentleman is always saying that he is keen to revive the interest of small investors, as if there were a time in recent decades when large numbers of small investors were buying stocks and shares in large firms. They have never existed to any degree. This is not the United States. In Britain, the purchasers of shares are the institutional investors, as we have seen in recent months. What percentage of the total issue will he issue in that way?
I turn to what the Secretary of State has not said. He will know, because they have been quoted in the press, that a number of documents have been leaked from his Department and from the merchant banks—

Mr. Lawson: Not from my Department.

Mr. Rees: The documents that have been quoted say that there has been a disagreement—has there been?—between the Government and Britoil, backed by Rothschilds, which argues that the balance sheet "needs attention". It states that, as presently constituted, the balance sheet
is not one to inspire confidence in potential investors.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Britoil has asked for cash to keep up the dividends in the event of a drop in profitability, and that the figures that are being discussed—the House should know about this—are that £80 million will be a cash injection, £127 million will come from the national oil account and £219 million from retained profits, making a total of £426 million to massage

the account before the sale. Will Britoil get that money? That is what is being said in knowledgeable circles, and this House should know that.
I turn to the sale of shares to foreign investors. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the national interest, which I presume is the phrase that he used in the initial legislation; otherwise there would have been trouble with the EEC. When that large amount of assets is put in share form on the market, what steps will he take to ensure that Middle Eastern, American and other investors do not buy the national assets that belong to the people of Britain?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britoil has been a fabulous asset in the North Sea and that since 1975 BNOC has fed money into the Treasury? Does he accept that it is not a loss-maker, that BNOC was a successful form of public enterprise and that his political dogma will lead to the sell-out of the century?

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions and I shall try to answer most of them. He will have to wait until the prospectus form is available before some of them are answered. However, I shall answer many of his questions, if he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be patient.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the absurd story about the injection of cash and dressing up the balance sheet. He has enabled me firmly to place on the record that the Government do not plan to make any injection of new cash into the company. We shall be arranging for the entire net outstanding balance of money drawn from the national oil account on 31 July to be repaid. That deals with that allegation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that now is not the right time to sell. He did not say that when I announced the intention to privatise on 19 October 1981. On that date the Financial Times actuary's oil share index stood at 654. It is now 762. In other words, there has been a rise of 16½ per cent. The stock market is such that there is no reason for the right hon. Gentleman—if he knew anything about these matters, which he does not, he would not make the suggestion—to suggest that this is the wrong time to sell.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about selling below the real value of national assets. If he knows what the value of the assets are, I hope that he will tell the House how he arrived at that figure. It is only the market which can judge the value of the company. It is possible to make arbitrary estimates of the net asset value, but they depend on forecasting that takes into account the lifetime of the oilfields in question, the price of oil, the exchange rate, interest rates, the taxation system and the inflation rate. A different figure will emerge whatever assumptions are fed in. The only true value of the company is the value set on it by the market.
Following the successful flotation of Britoil, which will take place, I would welcome an examination by the Public Accounts Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in imagining that part-paid shares enable investors to make a profit which fully-paid shares do not.
Underwriting is the normal way of issuing shares—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is a rip-off.

Mr. Lawson: It is by no means a rip-off.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a misuse of public money.

Mr. Lawson: It is a means of ensuring that the sale takes place and of increasing the price level, thereby benefiting the taxpayer. What is important is the price that is paid to the underwriters. I have examined the only comparable cases. Those are the 1977 BP share offer under the previous Labour Government, of which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was a member, and the 1979 BP share offer under this Government. The terms agreed to by the previous Labour Government for the underwriters were more generous than those agreed by this Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegation about underwriting.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about foreign investment. The underwriting will be undertaken by British institutions. The offer will be on the London Stock Exchange, unlike the BI' shares offer of the previous Labour Government, which took place on the New York Stock Exchange. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government will retain a special share which will ensure that control of the company, or of the board, cannot move into unacceptable hands.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on the statement. If hon. Members are succinct, everyone who wishes to participate will be called.

Mr. John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country will welcome his statement about the return of the ownership of Britoil to the British public? Is he aware also that Labour Members always want to nationalise industry at the lowest possible market price and always object to denationalisation because they say that the market price is not high enough?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. When a Labour Government seek to nationalise a company or industry, they never take the slightest notice of timing or market conditions, yet when in Opposition they have the gall to suggest to us that we should have some special care for these matters, of which they show little understanding.

Mr. Tom Ellis: First, what effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that the sale will have on BNOC' s viability? Secondly, how does he propose to reconcile the long-term strategy with the short-term market responses that presumably will become increasingly dominant?

Mr. Lawson: BNOC will have an important role to play. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, but I explained in Committee how the corporation would be restructured. I am about to announce fairly shortly a strengthening of its role. The role that it plays as the custodian of the participation agreements is of considerable importance to British interests in the North Sea oil business.
The hon. Gentleman has asked about the reconciliation of the long-term strategy with short-term responses. Private enterprise has made North Sea oil the success that it has been. I am confident that by giving Britoil the chance to move into the private sector we shall increase its success.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are widespread fears in the country about the nature of this operation and that his answers this afternoon will do nothing to allay those fears?

Why cannot he make up his mind now about the tender option? Why cannot we have a prospectus before the House or a pro forma balance sheet? The right hon. Gentleman knows of the uncertainties of the market and the fears in the oil industry. and he took the opportunity this week at the Eurotec exhibition and conference to allay some of the industry's fears about taxation. Why is it that when he and his Department are shelving public interest and public assets in this manner they are trying at the same time to persuade the international oil industry, of which the United Kingdom is a substantial part, to go into China, where the oil industry is dominated by the public sector?

Mr. Lawson: It is entirely a matter for the oil industry to decide whether it goes into Chinese offshore waters. The United Kingdom oil industry has a successful record of exploration throughout the world. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the oil industry, especially the offshore supplies industry, but I do not think that he has a similar understanding of financial markets. The issue of a tender or an offer for sale is much more complex than he realises. He speaks as if new companies come to market by tender every day of the week. In fact, such tenders are few and far between. There has never been anything remotely as big as Britoil that has been issued by the tender mechanism.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in 1975, when the Treasury, at the behest of the then Labour Government, directed that the Burmah Oil Company's assets in BP were to be taken over, they were taken over at the lowest point in the market? At that time the Labour Party was prepared to accept the market's verdict: why should it not do so now? As the profitability of Britoil is likely to be prospective rather than immediate, mainly because of the large acreage involved, surely it is only right that the market share should be reduced slightly.

Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly with his strictures about the Opposition. They are in no position to cast any stones in this area. The sale of 51 per cent. of Britoil, which we have debated in Committee upstairs and on the Floor, represents about 3½ per cent. of total North Sea oil production. Yet I recall that in 1977 the then Labour Government sold BP shares representing 9 per cent. of North Sea oil production without any prior parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, since that sale the BP price has increased by well over 50 per cent., so that was not very clever, was it ?

Mr. Douglas Jay: Since the right hon. Gentleman has such an expert knowledge of financial markets, what is his answer to the widespread criticism in the financial press that he is cooking the books to carry through this disreputable deal?

Mr. Lawson: I resent deeply that allegation. particularly as I have already explained, in answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), that there is no truth in it whatever. The books are in no way being cooked. There is no fresh cash injection by the Government into Britoil. The money that Britoil owes to the national oil account will have to be repaid in full. There is no dressing up. There is no sham of any kind.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be little joy in Scotland that in one ,lay we are stripping the country's oil


and fish assets? If the Secretary of State is so confident that the financial returns will be beneficial, will he give the House the working assumption of the value of the proceeds of the sale of the 51 per cent. of Britoil compared with the asset value of the resources under sale?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman was obviously asleep when I discussed that before. The value of the company is that which the market places on it. It is impossible to arrive at a precise evaluation of the net asset value because to do so depends on making inevitably speculative and arbitrary assumptions about the lifetime of oilfields owned by the company, about the rate of inflation, the rate of interest, the sterling/dollar exchange rate and the oil price. They affect the outcome considerably. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the true valuation of the company is that placed on it by the market, which makes its best judgment of all those factors in the light of the substantial information that will be provided in the prospectus.

Mr. Peter Rost: May I particularly welcome the commitment to give preference to the small investor? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if he is to achieve a wider spread of shareholding, he will have to take firm measures to discourage the short-term, professional speculator? Will he therefore consider ensuring that all cheques are cashed before allotments are made and that all multiple applications are eliminated?

Mr. Lawson: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's suggestions. Indeed, I listened attentively to him when he made them on an earlier occasion. I have taken them fully into account. I shall be reserving the right to cash all cheques on receipt.
I hope that the issue will be attractive to small investors. I want to make it clear, so that there is no doubt in the House, that North Sea oil is a risk investment. That is a fact of life. Those who wish to invest in the company will have to bear that in mind. It is a very good company. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South about that. Of course, I shall be taking steps, not merely to encourage the small investor, but to discourage the type of activity that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the words "daylight robbery" can be properly used in the House they will be rightly used to describe the irresponsible course on which the right hon. Gentleman is embarked? Will he assure the House that the questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to which he gave no reply, and those to which he gave only a partial reply, will be further explored? Does he accept that the House should have an early opportunity to explore these matters before the flotation, either by a statement or, preferably, by way of debate in Government time?

Mr. Lawson: There has been substantial debate on the matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows since he was a member of the Committee and has taken a full part in our debates in the House. It is striking that there was so much debate that the Opposition did not even bother to take up anything like the full time that they were allotted under the allocation of time motion.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is misleading to describe the announcement as creating an independent British company, because all that it does is create another global international company? Will he take the opportunity to clarify that part of his statement dealing with employee participation, which I welcome, and say precisely what preferential arrangements are to be made for employees?

Mr. Lawson: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I too believe strongly in employee participation. For the details of the scheme the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the prospectus.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for his announcement, and particularly for his courageous decision to go ahead with the sale next month? Will he confirm and expand on the preference that he is to give to small investors? Will he ensure that copies of the prospectus are available in sub-post offices and Crown post offices?

Mr. Lawson: I shall certainly ensure that copies of the prospectus are made available in Crown post offices. To go as far as making them available in sub-post offices would be a little difficult.

Mr. Joan Evans: Is not the Secretary of State misleading the House when he says that the disposal of Britoil is to allow British people to participate in its ownership? Does not everyone in Britain own Britoil? Is he not taking the ownership away from the people and giving it to only a small section? Does he agree that not only will it pass into the hands of just some British people, but it could in future pass into the hands of foreign capital? May we have an assurance about that? May we also have an assurance that the sale of the shares will not involve the same scandal as that which occurred in relation to the sale of Amersham International?

Mr. Lawson: Amersham was a successful issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] In addition, the recent sale of a controlling interest in Standard Telephones and Cables by ITT was successful and similarly oversubscribed. The hon. Gentleman knows little about the subject. However, I know that he cares deeply about the national interest. I shall repeat for his benefit that under the articles of association the Government retain, and will in perpetuity, a special share which will enable them to prevent any change in control either of the company or of the composition of the board that is unacceptable.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread acclaim for the speed with which he has implemented the sale of Britoil? Since we are talking about a company owned by the people being sold to the people, and since, as others have said, we are anxious as far as possible to encourage small shareholders to subscribe, will my right hon. Friend please bear in mind that many of us urge upon him the case for having a fixed price share offer rather than a tender, as that will provide certainty and simplicity which, in my judgment, will attract the small rather than the institutional invester?

Mr. Lawson: I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's advice.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Will the families of members of the Government be debarred from applying


for the shares? If not, would it not be a good thing for Ministers to exercise a self-denying ordinance on their behalf?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are wasting time that could be used for questions.

Sir William Clark: rose— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only a few minutes left for other questions that need to be asked.

Sir William Clark: Emphasis has been placed on the small investor. Would my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister seemed to wish to rise to answer an important question, should he not be given the chance to do so?

Mr. Speaker: If he had, I should not have stopped him.

Sir William Clark: While I welcome the emphasis that has been placed on the small investor, would my right hon. Friend remind the House that even if there is a great deal of institutional buying, it will be on behalf of millions of pensioners who have their funds with those institutions?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is entirely right. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches are inclined to talk about the City institutions as if they were some evil, strange and probably foreign, gnomic characters. They are bodies such as the National Coal Board pension fund.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: How does the Minister reconcile his corny comments that he wants to encourage small shareholders to invest in Britoil with what happened with Amersham International? He has the audacity to claim that the sale of Amersham International was a success. The 65,000 successful applicants were down to 8,601 shareholders within four months. Two-thirds of the shares of the present company are owned in lots of £250,000 and over.
We said in Committee, and have repeated in the House, that the Government presented an opportunity for the financial sharks to move in on a despicable and disgraceful bonanza. They will move in again on this sale.

Mr. Lawson: Those "financial sharks"—quoting the hon. Gentleman—who own large numbers of Amersham shares are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) mentioned, the pension and life assurance funds who bought them on behalf of their members and those who hold life assurance policies. It is absurd to speak as he does. He should welcome the fact that 99 per cent. of Amersham employees hold shares in their company.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is the last statement of the Session, I propose to call the three hon. Members who have been standing before I call the Front Bench speakers.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister be courteous to the House, to which he is accountable as an elected Minister, and answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) put to him about the involvement of Ministers? Whether he

likes it or not, the public is extremely worried about what it sees as a rip-off engineered by a Tory Government for the benefit of their backers outside.
How many health workers and other ordinary workers does he expect to participate in the sale? Will there be a special needs payment from the DHSS or the unemployment benefit office for the 3½ million people his Government have put on the dole, and who presumably will not otherwise be able to participate in the bonanza?

Mr. Lawson: I have no idea how many health workers or others will participate in the offer. We shall have to wait and see. The nation is far more interested in the lamentable and sorry spectacle of the Labour Party than it is in Britoil.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put to him by my hon. Friends the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about Ministers' families purchasing shares?

Mr. Lawson: I regarded that question as beneath contempt when it was asked the first time, and I still do.

Mr. David Winnick: That is what Nixon said about Watergate.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Minister cast his mind back to when we first discussed Britoil and the sell-off of British oil? Can he remember constantly saying that it would be sold off to the highest bidder? Will the Secretary of State come clean and answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who mentioned the Middle East? Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State loves the Soviet Union, if the Soviet Union is the highest bidder, will he sell Britoil to it?

Mr. Lawson: That is a rather far-fetched question.

Mr. Haynes: It is not far-fetched.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has the right to make a comment of that sort. I have asked for a straight answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had some strange comments this afternoon. We have had suggestions of robbery, blackmail and many others. That was mild compared with the mood of the House.

Mr. Lawson: It is my judgment—I understand that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) may think differently—that that was rather a far-fetched question. He imagines that the whole company is being sold to the highest bidder. It is nothing like that. Fifty-one per cent. of the shares will be sold to individuals, and it is rather unlikely—quite apart from any views that the Government may have—that the Soviet Union will encourage individuals to subscribe to the share issue.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Minister aware that he is extremely free with his Oxford Union epithets and that he has a high opinion of himself? Is he aware that our feelings for him are not founded on such a flimsy basis, and that we hope that he never again holds high Government office when the national interest is at stake. Typically, he did not answer one basic question. He said that no money is to be put into Britoil, as is alleged


and as is shown in documents which are around. Did Britoil ask for that money, because it is an important factor in the sale that is to take place in the next few weeks?

Mr. Lawson: I am not in the habit of referring to confidential internal documents any more than the right hon. Gentleman was when he was Home Secretary. He ought to know better.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard three questions from the Opposition about Ministers' families—to the effect either that they should not be allowed to participate in the purchase of shares, or that the Secretary of State should make a statement saying that Ministers would practise a self-denying ordinance. The Secretary of State said that that was beneath contempt. It is a matter of public interest, and any Minister—I know that you are not responsible for his answers, Mr. Speaker, but you are responsible for the conduct of Parliament and our democratic institutions—can fob off questions by saying that they are beneath his contempt.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has done well, but he knows better.

Mr. Eggar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) to be reading a paper in the Chamber, even if it is about himself?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: While you are considering that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to bear in mind the fact—the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) has been here long enough to know it—that I might be studying the paper for a subsequent debate?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be quite in order if he were in the Library, but not here.

Council House Rents

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The Government's concealment of their plan to raise council house rents until after tomorrow's by-elections.
The matter is specific in that I have in my possession a Department of the Environment working document that considers a variety of options for raising council house rents for the forthcoming financial year and which contains formulae for raising rents by an average of £2 a week. Furthermore, two weeks ago, I publicly warned that the Government planned to raise rents by £2 a week. That warning was widely reported, but no attempt was made by the Government to deny it. They would certainly have denied it had it not been accurate.
Last weekend, I repeated my warning and challenged the Secretary of State for the Environment to deny it. Once again, the warning was reported in the press, and once again the Government's silence confirmed it.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) raised the matter with the Prime Minister at Question Time. The Prime Minister gave an evasive answer when it was open to her to deny it, if it were possible for her truthfully to do so. Therefore, this plan for a £2 rent increase is unquestionably specific.
It is important for two reasons—first, because more than 5 million council tenants will be affected by this further 15 per cent. rent increase on top of the 112 per cent. rent increases already forced on council tenants by this Government and, secondly, because tens of thousands of electors in Northfield and Peckham will be affected by this latest, damaging Tory rent increase.
Those electors vote in by-elections tomorrow, and before they vote they have the right to a full explanation by the Government why they intend to raise their rents by 15 per cent. when they plan to limit pay increases to 3½ per cent.
The matter is urgent because not only is this the eve of poll in the by-elections but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, it is the last day of the parliamentary Session. Two years ago, on the last day of the Session, the Secretary of State for the Environment tried to avoid revealing his plans for raising council house rents until Parliament was no longer able to question him. As a result, the admission of Black Rod was delayed on that day.
The Secretary of State is now trying the same kind of shifty manoeuvre all over again, with the added aggravating circumstance that he is attempting a cover-up that will conceal important information from electors in two by-elections. Parliament will not sit again for a week, and if we do not debate this matter today, we shall be unable to do so for at least a further week.
I therefore appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to grant priority to this debate, not only in the interests of this House but to protect the rights of tens of thousands of citizens who tomorrow have the responsibility of casting their votes and who have the right to know the truth about the Government's plans to increase their rents.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The Government's concealment of their plan to raise council house rents until after tomorrow's by-elections.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for a debate tonight which would change the order of the business before us. I listened carefully to what he said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given a ruling, and no one wishes to quarrel with it. It is entirely a matter for you to decide, as you have said on many occasions. However, is it not an unfortunate position—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not on a point of order.

Mr. Winnick: I am, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I decide whether it is a point of order.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not pursue the matter with me.

Mr. Winnick: It is a different point.

Mr. Speaker: As long as it is a different subject that is not related, I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman. But if it is related, I warn the hon. Gentleman that I shall take a very poor view of him after I have given a ruling.

Mr. Winnick: I am referring to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said happened two years ago. Is it not unfortunate that one must resort to direct action until one gets a statement from the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was pursuing the same matter—[Interruption.] His parliamentary conduct is not in question at the moment.

Local Authorities (Employment of Apprentices)

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage local authorities to employ apprentices in their direct labour departments.
In moving this motion, I do so deeply conscious that this small measure may appear almost insignificant in the context of the curse of mass unemployment which the Government have inflicted on men and women of all ages since they took office in May 1979.
As The Guardian this morning so pointedly put it: 
Today's record unemployment is part of the price that we are continuing to pay for this Government's mistakes".
However, it is the intention behind this measure to extend just a little help and some hope to a number of young people among that grim total. of 1,297,000 under-25s at present unemployed. It is ironic that that is almost identical to the total number of unemployed under the Labour Government in May 1979. The figure for total unemployment then was 1,299,000.
The present legal provisions introduced by the Government's legislation effectively inhibit the power of local authorities to initiate special building apprenticeships. Such schemes are primarily designed to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment and are also aimed at providing a pool of trained workers in the building industry for the future benefit of both the private and public sectors of that industry.
This must be seen against a background of a catastrophic decline in the number of apprentices that is now taken on by private industry. For example, in the Kirklees authority in Huddersfield, an engineering town, the number of engineering apprentices has dropped from 357 in 1978 to 113 in 1981. However, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the regulations laid under that Act, particularly circular 6/82, have placed severe constraints on the ability of local authorities to pursue this policy.
This morning, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities gave evidence that one large Yorkshire authority has had the number of apprenticeships slashed' from 126 in 1980 to only 20 in 1982. In 1979, 164 young men and women were employed under this scheme in Manchester, but the figure has slumped to 39 this year. Sunderland has been badly hit by unemployment. In 1980, there were 122 real apprenticeship opportunities in that town, and that figure has now dropped to 10. In Birmingham, where there will be a by-election tomorrow, the figures are just as catastrophic.
The special apprenticeship schemes with which I am concerned here are quite separate from the normal apprenticeship schemes which operate in direct labour organisations. My Bill seeks to separate one from the other. The Government's intention was to put a 5 per cent. return on capital requirement on direct labour organisations, but surely at no time was it their intention to deprive local authorities of the ability to provide proper apprenticeships for young men and women. These are real apprenticeships. They are for three, four or five years. They are not new training initiatives. They are not for six months or a year. They represent real training that leads to a job, a craft and .a skill.


Here direct labour organisations are normally expected to compete with outside contractors on an equal basis. The cost of training apprentices is to be borne by the DLOs, just as it would be borne by a private contractor. I do not query that. However, private contractors do not have the same responsibilities as local authorities in providing facilities to help unemployed people find new skills, and in providing a pool of workers for the future when prospects for the building industry improve—possibly under the next Labour Government.
In Kirklees, my own authority, the council operates a special apprenticeship training scheme under which 50 building apprentices were to be recruited by the building services direct labour organisation in three consecutive years—1981, 1982 and 1983. That had to end, although it was a scheme for 150 young men and women, in addition to the 20 normal apprentices in that organisation. It was intended that the cost of those apprenticeships would be recharged from the DLO to the budget of the resources and planning committee. However, the combined effect of the 1980 Act and the regulations under it make that impossible.
The special training budget would have been charged direct to the general rate fund. The only alternative would be to have the training budget charged to the DLOs' client committees. Those of us who have been in local government know that the inexorable result of that policy would be to force the housing revenue account to bear the brunt. It would mean that the real cost of the scheme to provide employment for all the people's children would be borne by the rents. That would result in a catastrophic rise in rents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out in his application under Standing Order No. 9. Rents would go up again, although they have already gone up 117 per cent. since this Government came to power.
This modest little Bill is an attempt to provide young people with jobs and to give them a future. I hope that the House is with me in that intention.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Ted Graham, Mr. Jim Craigen, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. Stan Thorne.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMPLOYMENT OF APPRENTICES)

Mr. Barry Sheerman accordingly presented a Bill to encourage local authorities to employ apprentices in their direct labour departments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

Industrial Development Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): In accordance with the normal practice for consolidation Bills, I shall put the clauses together.

Clauses 1 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, TRANSITIONAL
PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 22, line 32, leave out `and 5C' and insert ', 5C and 5D'.
Since this Bill passed the scrutiny of the Joint Committee, for which, as always, we are greatly indebted to the chairman, the noble and learned Lord Roskill, and its members, the law which it consolidates has been changed by the Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order 1982. The amendment is necessary to reflect that change in this Bill. It has been submitted to and approved by Lord Roskill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Education, Scotland (Assisted Places)

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Regulations 1982 (S .I., 1982, No. 949), dated 9th July 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be annulled.
We welcome the opportunity to debate these regulations, but we are mindful of the fact that time is not on our side and that a considerable amount of business has already been transacted this afternoon. Perhaps I might observe that, had we a Scottish Assembly, this matter would have been the legitimate concern of that body. Certainly the interest shown by certain sections of the House in this legislation suggests that they do not have much faith in it, although I should add that if we had a Scottish Assembly it would be Labour-controlled, and we should not need to deal with legislation of this kind. We expressed our opposition to the assisted places scheme as soon as the Education (Scotland) Bill 1980 was published, and we pursued that opposition without success in the Committee, where we were in a minority.
These regulations replace the regulations that went through the House last year. They are not radically different in content from those of the previous year. They are none the less unacceptable. I hope that the Minister, in winding up will touch on some of the differences.
First, I shall deal with part II of the regulations dealing with eligibility for assisted places. In article 6, dealing with the conditions about age and education, the age of 12 has now been reduced to 11, and in certain circumstances it could be 10. I am not sure why the figure was reduced, because in Scotland the age of transfer from primary to secondary schools is normally 12-plus, as distinct from 11-plus south of the border. It may well be that there has been a transplanting of the regulations from England to Scotland. If that is so, we should have a detailed explanation. Furthermore, it appears that the maximum age at which a student can receive remission of fees will be 20. Therefore, there is the prospect of almost 10 years of secondary education under an assisted places scheme.
We appreciate that the Minister has seen fit to uprate some of the figures in the regulations regarding the remission of fees to take account of inflation. However, it seems that varying criteria have been used. Why is the deduction from a dependant's relevant income now £800 under part III, article 10(3), whereas last year it was £600? Where is there evidence for an increase of 33⅓ per cent? Few social security entitlements have been increased so radically.
I return to a point made last year about false information, which is dealt with in article 11(3). This year the withdrawal of remission is at the Secretary of State's discretion. Last year, only the amount that was fiddled by the parents could be withheld. The Secretary of State now has greater powers. If false information is provided and the fees remitted, the Secretary of State has power to withhold the total amount of the fee, which he could not do last year. In addition, he has the discretion to withhold the remission of fees for anyone else in the family.
We welcome the extension, but we are concerned that that power should still be at the Secretary of State's discretion. On how many occasions has he used that power in the past 12 months? How many cases of false

information have been provided? If there is to be a right of appeal, as is evidenced in article 11(3), will lie formalise that?
Article 13 deals with the calculation of remission in the event of a parent's death and a change in financial circumstances in the course of a year. How was the figure of 85 per cent. arrived at? While that is more precise than previously, it would be useful to have the reasoning behind that figure on record.
Article 14 concerns the scale of remission. The relevant income level is now set at £5,275 as against £4,766 last year. Upon what basis has that calculation been made? Es it on the basis of wage or price inflation?
Part IV concerns the making of grants and remission of charges. Has the Minister given any thought to extending the scheme to those who are denied a chance merely by an accident of geography? Much as we disapprove of the scheme, it is ridiculous for the Minister to pretend that there is any widening of opportunity if large tracts of Scotland are to be denied the opportunity to participate in the scheme.
There seems to be a difficulty about eligibility for travel grants. Various income thresholds are applied. The figure of £5,275 is used for remission of fees, while the figure of £5,100 is used for travel grants. It would be interesting to know why the Minister has chosen that figure rather than £5,275. We see that the threshold figure for clothing grants is £5,100 for a maximum grant of £90, and £5,800 for the minimum award of £2:3. In the third year the award based on the threshold of £5,100 is £45 and on £5,350 the minimum award is £23. What is the rationale behind that? As far as I can see the Minister is simply plucking figures out of the air.
It is unfair to expect local authorities, which have to raise money from the rates to help people in financial difficulties, to provide assistance for school clothing, when those people who are participating in the scheme get assistance with school clothing and meals in an exceedingly generous way by comparison with local authorities which overate under constraints.
One notes that the relevant income threshold for the remission of meal charges has been raised from £4,000 to £4,400. That is an increase in the base line of 10 per cent. Again, on what is that based?
In the last debate we sought undertakings from the Minister on a variety of points which he was incapable of answering. From the manner in which the regulations have been presented and the refusal of requests for legitimate information, it would appear that there are many areas in which he is still not prepared to come clean. An obvious example concerns entrance examinations. Several participating schools now have entrance examinations and we should like to know if the Department of Education and Science is making any attempt to monitor the number of schools involved. Is the inspectorate of schools concerned as to the contents of the exams and whether or not they distort the education in those institutions where preparation for such exams takes place? In some instances it is obvious that primary schools and primary departments of participating schools are preparing children for examinations on the understanding that they will go straight from the primary to the secondary department at a reduced rate.
At a time of greater cutbacks in local authority education it is becoming increasingly clear that the local authority sector is incapable of providing the specialist


tuition that many youngsters and parents expect, while participants in the assisted places scheme have it as of right.
That, and many other anomalies which we should have liked to raise, should be the legitimate concern of the House and we hope that in future years more time will be made available. The Minister and the Scottish Education Department have fallen down in the preparation of the regulations. There is insufficient information about the schools. There is no clear evidence on the take-up and the cost of the scheme. There has been a refusal to provide information about the income of participating parents. There is a great deal of work still to be done before the scheme can be anything other than a bribe to the lower middle classes to support the discredited Government in Scotland.
For those reasons we oppose the regulations. We take grave offence that the matter is crammed in at the end of the Session and that there is inadequate time to deal with a subject of this importance and significance to Scottish parents and students.

Mr. George Foulkes: I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) has just said. It is intolerable that two major items affecting many people in Scotland are crammed in at the fag end of the Session, at the fag end of the day and at the fag end of the debates that have taken place. Proper consideration is not being given to items that are of great concern to Scottish people.
As my hon. Friend said, if the Government had done as Lord Home of the Hirsel said and had given meaningful devolution instead of tricking the Scottish people at the time of the referendum, matters such as this would have been dealt with in a Scottish Assembly. Instead of supporting and bouying up the private education system we would be in the process of abolishing it because it is alien to the wishes of the Scottish people.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher) rose—

Mr. Foulkes: I think that the Minister will have an opportunity to reply later.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

Mr. Foulkes: There is not much time. I have been told that I have only a few minutes in which to speak.

Mr. Fletcher: We have got until 11.30 pm.

Mr. Foulkes: The Under-Secretary of State says that from a sedentary position. I shall be here until 11.30 pm and I look forward to discussing the issue with him at that late hour.
I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire has said, because it needs repeating as often as possible. After the next election, when the Labour Party is returned to office, we shall at an early opportunity repeal the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 and take steps to abolish private schools in Scotland. Scottish private schools benefit far too much from the public purse. They are already picking the public pocket through rate relief and exemption from VAT for school fees, and through help with corporation,

capital transfer, capital gains and development land taxes. Now, more taxpayers' money is being poured into private schools for the privileged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire mentioned clothing grants. It is appalling that public money should be given to children in private schools when the Government have taken money away from the DHSS that should have gone to poor children in local authority schools. We are providing blazers for privileged children attending Fettes when we are withdrawing the right to shoes from children attending Firrhill, Craigroyston or any other such school. That appalling situation is typical of the Government.
Teachers' salary awards are also part of the new mechanism introduced under the 1981 Act. The Government have double-crossed the local authorities and have agreed to a 6 per cent. salary award for teachers. Under the new negotiating arrangements the Secretary of State's representatives were involved.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: What is the relevance of that?

Mr. Foulkes: I shall come to its relevance if the Under-Secretary of State is patient. The Government are paying only their part of 4 per cent. and that means that they are paying nothing towards 2 per cent. of the award. The local authorities are having to bear the burden of an extra £5·45 million. Instead of giving money to the private schools, it would be much better if the Government were to play fair with the local authorities by making the money available to them instead. The local authorities are sore and rightly annoyed that the Government should have double-crossed them over salaries.
The subsidisation of private schools is a matter of great concern to the people of Scotland. It is totally alien to them. They do not want private schools to be subsidised and they did not vote for that. The situation is particularly galling for those who represent constituencies like mine. Private schools are unevenly distributed and the vast majority are in Edinburgh. As a result, my constituents are subsidising, through their taxes, privileged educations for the sons and daughters of the Edinburgh bourgeoisie. That is causing great concern to my constituents.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Mr. Michael Ancram (Edinburgh, South) rose—

Mr. Foulkes: I shall not give way. The last person to whom I would give way is one of the titled aristocracy of the Tory Party.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—

Mr. Foulkes: I am sorry, I have just remembered that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is the second to last person to whom I would give way.
Those like me, who send their children to local authority schools will fight, and fight again, against the regulations. They are wholly alien to all the traditions of Scottish education.

Mr. George Robertson: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because the regulations demonstrate only too well the way in which the Government are determined to perpetuate class distinctions in Scotland by propping up the private schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said, that system is wholly alien to traditions in


Scotland. It is being imported and supported by Government-invented schemes that have no public support.
The obsession with private schooling is clearly illustrated in Hamilton. Behind the scenes there have been secret negotiations between the Minister's representatives and representatives of some so-called non-profit-making evangelical Christian foundation based in Ormskirk, Lancashire. It wishes to purchase the buildings of the former college of education in Hamilton that was closed as a result of the Minister's educational vandalism. The regulations seek to prop up this "difficult to support" sector of education. In addition, the Government are almost giving away a valuable public resource to a sector of education that has no public support in the Lanarkshire area.
The silence and secrecy that shroud the deals remind me of the shady, dirty-coated salesman of dirty photographs in a back street. The Minister is trying to dispose, for ever-decreasing sums, of a valuable public resource that could have many other uses that would be to the advantage of the local people. He is almost giving them away to such questionable organisations. I have made some calculations about the accounts that the projected new college might submit to the Secretary of State under article 32 of the regulations if it is propped up by the assisted places scheme. They are likely to be quaint accounts even for this monetarism-obsessed Government.
Mr. Charles Oxley, the principal of the company concerned and chairman of Mrs. Whitehouse's National Viewers and Listeners Association, tells the public through the newspapers—although the Minister tells us nothing—that they will charge each pupil £200 per term. That will raise him £480,000 each year. However, to run Hamilton College buildings, the heating, lighting and rates—with the 50 per cent. mandatory reductions—accounts for £170,000. Assuming that he pays an appropriate number of teachers the average salary paid to teachers in other schools he will have to pay a further £291,000. Therefore, he is not running an evangelical non-profit making organisation. Under article 32 of the regulations he will be running a loss-making evangelical Christian foundation, despite the ludicrously generous subsidy to be given to the college—it will apparently be charged a reduced price for the buildings. It is a mystery how a private school in Lanarkshire can be run on that financial basis.
I hope that the Minister will illustrate the type of accounts that he would expect to be supplied to him under article 32 by explaining the economic arguments that have presumably been put to him by officials as to how Mr. Oxley, whatever price he charges, will be able to take these buildings off the Minister's hands and not have to hand them back in bankruptcy only a few months after they are sold on the open market.
The parcelling off and sale of these college buildings, which are valuable resources provided for and in the interests of the community, to a questionable venture in the private sector is a bad joke. The sooner there is an investigation into this scandal, the better, before the Secretary of State has to offer his own accountants to the school under article 32, if and when this measure reaches the statute book.

6 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: The regulations are important because if we really intend to invest in people, as we constantly hear, we must make the maximum use of whatever assets are available. If people are fortunate enough to live in an area in which there are good private schools able to take some children from the local authority sector with assistance from the Government, that s an investment in each child who is fortunate enough—I use that phrase advisedly—to be a.ble to attend such a school. It is most disturbing to hear hon. Members who have themselves enjoyed a privileged private education seeking to deny it to less fortunate children whose parents, unlike those of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), cannot afford to send their children to such schools.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I shall not give way as the hon. Gentleman would not give way to us.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to point out to the hon. Gentleman that my parents paid nothing towards my education?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): That is a point of information, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Ancram: He must have had an assisted place.

Mr. Walker: I leave others to make their own judgments on that. The attitude of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire today seems to be, "It was all right for me when I went, but it is not all right for other people today''. I believe that the regulations will help many less fortunate children to take advantage of such an education and that this is a real investment in people for the future.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome the new-found enthusiasm shown by some hon. Members for the Scottish Assembly. It is gratifying to note that a change of opinion is occurring within the House. I should point out, however, that those hon. Members will have to decide whether they are British or Scottish. If the electorate returns a Tory Government at the next general election, will those hon. Members be British and accept the decision of the British electorate or will they be Scottish and repudiate it? I leave them to think that over during the rest of this short debate .
I wish to deal with article 18. It is disgraceful that the Government should introduce special provisions of this kind to provide clothing grants for certain children in the private sector when they refuse to provide the same or even a lesser sum for children attending local authority schools. It is appalling that the DHSS strangled the regulations that allowed it to provide special needs grants for children's clothing. It was pointed out to me at the time that under the new regulation even shoes could not be construed as a necessity, as there was no danger to the health or safety of the child if it had no shoes. That is a dreadful way to treat children who are in need. It is the more appalling in that provision is now being made to help less disadvantaged children.
I therefore ask the Minister to think again about these provisions if he intends to go ahead with the scheme, as he probably does because this is the second set of


regulations that has been put forward in relation to it. He should at least make the conditions a little fairer than they are. It is disgraceful that he has managed to continue such unfairness in our society. It is very difficult for parents with children starting secondary school to obtain assistance from the DHSS or the local authority. It is even harder for them to have the door slammed in their face when other children can obtain money voted by the House under these regulations. The Minister should take that on board next time the regulations come before us. If we do not succeed in voting them down today. I hope that there will at least be a change in the regulations to remove these objectionable provisions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am conforming with arrangements made between the Front Benches—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there a time limit to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate will be interrupted at 7 o'clock for private business. It will be resumed at 10 o'clock and can then continue until 11.30.

Mr. Canavan: Will I be called after the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have called the Minister because it is the normal convention to call the Front Bench spokesman if he rises.

Mr. Fletcher: I am quite prepared to allow the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to make his contribution now if that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I shall be brief. I wish to place on record the utter disgust that most Opposition Members feel at the Government wasting the educational opportunities of the children of Scotland as well as the time of the House in bringing forward these regulations which have nothing whatever to do with improving the educational opportunities of the vast majority of children and young people in Scotland at this time.
Since the Minister came to office he has devastated the Scottish education system by massive cuts in public investment in the sector of education for which he has direct statutory responsibility. Moreover, at the same time as he is withdrawing public funds from the public sector, which caters for 97 per cent. of the children of Scotland, he now seeks through these regulations to provide more public money for the minority of children who attend these private fee-paying schools.
I draw attention to a written answer that I received from the Minister yesterday. Like so many written answers, because it lies concealed in the Official Report, some people may not have noticed it. Nevertheless, it is very important. I asked the Minister:
what has been the cost to date of the assisted places scheme; and what has been the amount of other public funds given to private fee-paying schools over the same period.
The Minister replied:

Expenditure on the assisted places scheme in Scotland amounts to £822,000 since the scheme started in August 1981.
No doubt the chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), and his lackey behind him, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), will try to make out that that is a piddling sum of public money because it is less than £1 million, which does not matter here or there when one considers the global expenditure on education in Scotland. But let them hear the rest of the story. The reply continues:
Over the same period to October 1982, maintenance grants to the grant-aided secondary schools amounted to £3,298,000 and grants to grant-aided special schools amounted to £3,847,000.
Moreover, the reply then states:
Details of grants or fees paid to the schools by local authorities are not available.
In other words, even the three sums that I have mentioned—amounting to nearly £8 million—do not give the whole story about the amount of public money being spent on the overprivileged private sector of education in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has carried out a great deal of research into the amount of rate and tax relief. That, too, is public subsidy to a private sector which caters for an overprivileged minority. My hon. Friend's estimate for tax and rate relief for the whole of the United Kingdom amounts to £280 million a year—for Scotland the amount would probably be about £30 million a year. That is obscene and it is disgraceful for a Minister, especially a Minister representing a Scottish constituency, to try to justify such priorities in public expenditure.
Hon. Members on the Government Benches represent only a tiny minority of the interests in Scottish education—indeed, they represent a dwinding minority of the people of Scotland. Therefore, instead of wasting parliamentary time debating such rubbish, we should have a vote immediately, throw out the regulations and move on to item No. 42 of the Orders of the Day, which is the Second Reading of my Scottish Parliamentary Bill. I should like to move, formally, for the second time today, the Second Reading of that Bill so that we can debate the real priorities of Scottish education instead of the rubbish priorities of an overprivileged crowd of politicians who are misrepresenting the people of Scotland and spending the people's money in order to line the pockets of their rich friends.

Mr. Ernie Ross: There has been a serious lack of information about the regulations. The Opposition made their concern known during the debates on the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. We have repeatedly asked the Minister to give us information about the assisted places scheme. We will then know how many places were awarded to fee-paying pupils in 1982–83. In a number of written answers, the Minister has failed to provide that information. We are being asked today to consider the regulations in the absence of that vital information.
When will the information be available? Why has it taken the schools so long to inform the Scottish education department and provide the information? will the information, as it did last year, prove embarrassing to the Government? Shall we find once again, when the figures


are revealed, perhaps during the brief recess, that the schools are spending the majority of the money on subsidies for their own pupils.
Last year 564 out of the 765 assisted places available—72 per cent.—went to fee-paying pupils who were already at the fee-paying schools. At Dundee high school 48 out of the 63 places—that is 76 per cent.—went to children who were already at the school. I am willing to wager that yet again a scheme that was meant to widen the range of opportunity for children in Scotland will be found to be open only to a hand-picked minority, the majority of whom already attend fee-paying schools.
A few pupils from the comprehensive sector, which the majority of pupils in Scotland attend, were allowed through to glimpse what is available in the fee-paying sector. Those children saw a land filled with charitable status, rates relief, tax relief, access to cheap food from the Common Market and teachers trained in the colleges of education. The greatest insult is that not only are the fee-paying schools taking our teachers who are trained in our colleges, but once the Minister has closed down the colleges, he will sell them to the fee-paying schools. That will perpetuate the inequalities.
The only good thing that can be said about the regulations is that, as an election looms on the horizon, the scheme will not remain much longer on the statute book. I am sure that the first thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) will do when he becomes Secretary of State for Scotland is to put the regulations in the bucket where they belong.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The objections expressed to the regulations by Opposition Members have been mainly objections to the scheme rather than to the details in the regulations. In the limited time that Opposition Members wish me to take to reply to the debate, I shall try to cover some of their points.
I should like to remind the Opposition of the object of the scheme. It is to make it possible for parents who would not otherwise be able to afford to do so to obtain places for their children in fee-paying schools. The scheme is financed out of resources saved from what, under many previous Administrations, was an indiscriminate subsidy available to rich and poor alike.
Under the assisted places scheme the subsidy is income linked so that it is used as it should be, to pay the whole of school fees for the least well off and to moderate them proportionately as family income increases. Experience of the scheme so far shows that the great majority of places are being taken up by children from families in the lower income ranges and families where the main wage-earner has an ordinary occupation—from bus drivers, plumbers and electricians to schoolteachers.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What about the unemployed?

Mr. Fletcher: Most of the parents taking advantage of the scheme are from working-class families with working-class incomes and working-class occupations. That is the fact of the matter, whether or not the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) likes it. It may be unpalatable to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members that many of their constituents seek places in these schools, but

that is just a measure of the extent to which Opposition Members neglect the real wishes and desires of their constituents.
Several hon. Members referred to expenditure. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) referred to the approximate figure of £800,000 spent on the assisted places scheme in 1981–82 when the total expenditure on school education in Scotland was almost £1 billion, when the pupil-teacher ratios in State schools in Scotland were better than they have ever been before and at a time when expenditure per pupil in State education in Scotland, both primary and secondary, was higher in real terms than ever before. Those figures reject the false accusations and arguments presented by Opposition Members who are taking up time in an education debate when we could be discussing matters of greater importance.

Mr. Canavan: That is the best thing the Minister has said today.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad that the hon. Gentlernan agrees with me because the debate this evening is taking place in official Opposition time, not in Government time.
I should like to turn now to the clothing allowance which was referred to by several hon. Members. It is wrong to say that the system in Scotland denies clothing to children in our State schools where the teacher or the school is of the opinion that the child is unable to recieve proper education because of the state of his clothing. Scottish education authorities can provide clothing for pupils who they believe cannot attend school because of clothing problems.
When the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill was in Committee the Opposition asked whether a clothing allowance was necessary for children on the assisted places scheme. When the Bill was in the other place, the former Secretary of State said that the allowance was insufficient to cover the needs of pupils on the assisted places scheme. That shows how the standards of Opposition Members improve as they become more elevated.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has for some time been excited about the proposed sale of Hamilton college. No educational organisation, public or private, other than the party to which he referred, has made a bid to use the college for educational purposes. The party involved has not stated an intention to join the assisted places scheme. The hon. Gentleman is premature on both counts. No contract has been concluded. I believe also that I have read that he puts a value of at least £12 million on the college. I should be delighted if his moneyed friends could produce an offer of even one quarter of that sum. 1 hope that he will suggest to his friends in education that they should make an offer of £2 million, £3 million or £4 million, instead of merely protesting in the newspapers.
I am happy to take time to answer the other points raised, but the Opposition might prefer me to refer them to the answers already given. They have asked questions to which they know the answers. The issues were earnestly considered when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. O'Neill: Many of the questions have not been answered either in written parliamentary replies or in previous debates. Will the Minister publish, either in a


letter or in parliamentary answers, statistics on the take-up of the assisted places scheme? Hitherto the Department has not been prepared to do that.

Mr. Fletcher: We have collected more information as the scheme has progressed, and it is still in its early stages, but I shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman the statistics in a letter.
The scheme is providing invaluable satisfaction to many families with modest incomes. Places in denominational or other schools previously barred to low income families are now accessible to them. My hon. Friends know of many families who are happy to take advantage of the scheme for good personal reasons. The Opposition may be ignoring such instances. The scheme widens educational choice, particularly for less well-off families, whom we at least wish to help.

Question put:—

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 949), dated 9th July 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 133.

Division No. 332] [6.24 pm

AYES


Alton, David
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
John, Brynmor


Beith, A. J.
Leighton, Ronald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bradley, Tom
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McNally, Thomas


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
McTaggart, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Buchan, Norman
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Carmichael, Neil
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, J. M.(G'gow, M'hill)
Miller, Dr M. S.(E Kilbride)


Cryer, Bob
Mitchell, R. C.(Soton ltchen)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Newens, Stanley


Deakins, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Palmer, Arthur


Dixon, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas, Dick
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Robertson, George


Eadie, Alex
Roper, John


Eastham, Ken
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Sheerman, Barry


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Spriggs, Leslie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Haynes, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Home Robertson, John
Tinn, James


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Welsh, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)





Willey, Rt Hon Frederick



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. George Morton and


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Derek Foster.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Luce, Richard


Ancram, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Macfarlane, Neil


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
MacGregor, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Berry, Hon Anthony
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Bevan, David Gilroy
McQuarrie, Albert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Major, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Marlow, Antony


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Mather, Carol


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Brinton, Tim
Mawby, Ray


Brooke, Hon Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brotherton, Michael
Mellor, David


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Moate, Roger


Bulmer, Esmond
Morgan, Geraint


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Murphy, Christopher


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Myles, David


Cockeram, Eric
Neale, Gerrard


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael


Corrie, John
Newton, Tony


Costain, Sir Albert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cranborne, Viscount
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Critchley, Julian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Pollock, Alexander


Dorrell, Stephen
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Dover, Denshore
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Rathbone, Tim


Durant, Tony
Renton, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Rhodes James, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Rossi, Hugh


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rost, Peter


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fox, Marcus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sims, Roger


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)


Goodlad, Alastair
Speed, Keith


Gorst, John
Speller, Tony


Gow, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gray, Hamish
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grist, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gummer, John
Selwyn Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hannam, John
Thompson, Donald


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Thornton, Malcolm


Hawksley, Warren
Trippier, David


Heddle, John
Waddington, David


Henderson, Barry
Walker, B. (Perth )


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Waller, Gary


Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman
Warren, Kenneth


Jessel, Toby
Watson, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, John


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Latham, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lawrence, Ivan



Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. David Hunt.


Loveridge, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Education, Scotland (School and Placing Information)

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (School and Placing Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 950), dated 9th July 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be annulled.
This set of regulations gives effect to an element in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 that has been called the parent's charter. The argument behind it was that the parents of Scottish children knew insufficient about the education institutions in Scotland that were available for their children, so there would have to be some form of compulsory circulation or advertising of the wares offered by schools. By the time the Bill was published most schools had prepared such prospectuses. It is commonplace for schools councils or academic councils in schools—what used to be called staff or principal teachers meetings—to produce documents such as the one that the Minister is insisting should be provided by law. We would not take grave exception to most of the information that is required by the Minister.
However, I should like to make some observations about schedule 1, paragraph 2(q)(ii), which is about the publication of examination results. We have always felt, and we argued in Committee when the Bill was being scrutinised, that to present raw statistics on examination results would be misleading. The subparagraph is inadequate because it does not take account of the possibility of Scottish students being presented for other than Scottish examination board exams. I have no reason to believe that the new education committees, for example, of Lothian region, will cease the courses and examinations that were provided and organised under the auspices of the certificate of secondary education and supervised by the northern examination board.
There are some schools where courses with external validation have been developed locally. They provide a flexibility that Scottish examination board exams do not as yet afford. Such courses are perhaps better suited to the needs of students in such institutions.
Nevertheless, the SED does not require such information to be published. I imagine that that is one of the mistakes for which the Department is all too famous. It is one of those things that demonstrate the Minister's lack of interest in and knowledge of Scottish education. Had he known anything about what is going on in Scottish secondary schools in the local authority sector he would have been aware of the deficiency. It spells out clearly the Opposition's major objection to the alleged information.
In many instances, unfair comparisons will be made on the basis of a simple league table when local authorities publish such documents. The local papers will provide lists of the comparative success or failure of an institution for public consumption. Examination passes will be the only yardstick employed. That is unacceptable. I have never heard an educationist arguing convincingly or being convinced that examinations are all that school is about.

But that is the way in which the press will treat the matter. The regulation is so restrictive that the full Scottish picture will not emerge.
At the other end of the academic spectrum, the regulation does not even provide for the inclusion of the international baccalaureat, which is the pride and joy of the chairman of the Scottish examination board who is the headmaster of the Royal high school in Edinburgh. It is, therefore, not only deficient as a means of recording the academic achievements of schools that operate under considerable economic deprivation; it is inadequate for the palmy areas of Barnton in Edinburgh. I understand that the Minister lives close to that school. His children may have gone there.
The Opposition find the regulations offensive in many respects. We recognise the desirability of local authorites providing information, but the required information about examination results is in no way a realistic guide to the activities of a school. Moreover, such information could easily be used by local people as a means of castigating particular institutions. The regulations could allow information to be used in a way that would distort the success or failure of an institution.
Furthermore, the regulations are substantially unnecessary as most local authorites have provided funds and encouraged schools to make prospectuses available. The new information that is being insisted upon would be misleading. It is too restrictive. It fails to take account of the diversity of examination systems that are used in Scottish schools.

Mr. John Maxton: In Committee, some Opposition Members expressed their worries and reservations about the effects that parental choice could have on some schools in some areas of large Scottish cities. I expressed anxiety about schools in an area such as Castlemilk, which is in my constituency. It suffers multiple deprivation. Unemployment there runs at more than 25 per cent. In some parts of the area more than 50 per cent. of the people are unemployed. There is a danger that parents in that area who believe that their children are a little brighter than others may send them to schools in another area. It is hard to deny parents that right, but we must always bear in mind that most parents do not do that. We have a responsibility to ensure that the education of those children who are not shifted is also looked after.
The danger is that schools in areas such as Castlemilk will find that the better motivated and brighter children will go to other schools in another area. As a result, schools in the deprived areas will lose the few children that set and maintain a higher standard. I gave that warning in Committee.
During the past year I have corresponded with the schools council that represents primary and secondary schools in Castlemilk. It is expressing exactly the same worries that I expressed in Committee. I know that the Minister will probably say that parents must have the right to move their children. But the schools council represents all the parents of all the children in all schools in Castlemilk. Their voice must be heard as well. The Minister may say that that is not so: But there is no other organisation, however poor it may be, or way in which parents can be represented in the school system.
The schools council is expressing grave concern that 30 secondary school pupils did not go to secondary schools


in Castlemilk this year but went elsewhere. The number may not be great but it is significant. Another six were unable to go to a large Roman Catholic school because it was full. But next year, because of the declining number of secondary school pupils, the same will almost certainly not be the case.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about schools councils being representative mainly of parents within the zoned area of a particular school, but we are discussing the principle of parental control—of individual rather than collective parental control. I agree that a parent could go to the schools council and say that it does not have direct access to a local authority to apply for a child to go to a school of the parents' choice. That is what parents' choice is all about.

Mr. Maxton: The problem is one of marrying the right of an individual parent and those of all parents collectively who want a good education to be provided in the area in which they live and where the local authority says that the children should go. I agree that there is a dichotomy that must be resolved.
The vast majority of parents, however, are happy to send their children to the school to which the local authority allocates their children.
If a few children are taken out of schools in areas of multiple deprivation problems are caused for all the parents of children in that school because its standard will fall rapidly. That is happening. Anxiety is being expressed about it. Quite rightly, the schools council has decided to look for ways in which education in Castlemilk can be improved. That is difficult when the Minister has cut the money available for education and is not allowing the proper development of schools in Castlemilk. Parents do not want to take their children away from schools in that area. Ministers must be aware that the straight publication of examination results as the main criterion of success will inevitably damage such schools as they do not have large numbers of academic children who take O-levels and Highers. The exam results of the school down the road, which has a middle-class background, will obviously be better. It would be wrong to compare it with the schools in Castlemilk—it would be an odious comparison. Parents are trying to place their children in other schools, and they are succeeding.

Mr. McQuarrie: What is the hon. Gentleman reading?

Mr. Maxton: It is a piece of paper that says that I should sit down at 9.45 pm. I do not think that that is correct.
If we base a school's performance entirely on exam results, there is a danger that parents will move their children to the schools with better results. Yet the schools in Castlemilk offer a great deal. Jordanhill college of education uses those schools to pilot some of its project work. It knows that the schools are well run, with good teachers. However, because the schools performance is based on exam results, they are losing some of their brighter pupils. As a result, education is being damaged in those areas that desperately need an improvement in education.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that he is willing to continue the debate after the interruption for private business. The regulations cover some serious matters, with which the Minister needs to deal. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would be here until 11.30 pm to deal with the points raised, and I said that I would be happy to be here with him. If we had a Scottish Assembly we could properly discuss the serious matter of Scottish education— [Interruption.] As a Member of the House, representing my constituency, I will not be bullied by anyone on either side into not using the limited time available to discuss Scottish issues. We have little enough time as it is. I understand that we can have another one and a half hours after private business to discuss the matter.
I wish to deal with three aspects of the regulations. The first relates to a number of specific points included in the regulations. I also wish to discuss the effects on Scottish education of the policy of so-called freedom of choice. I want to deal with the arrangements for appeals to the sheriff and the inappropriateness of a sheriff dealing with the appeals.
I hope that when the Minister replies, he will explain how the regulation covering schools information— [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) wish to ask a question? I shall be glad to give way if he has a point to raise. The regulations say that the information to be provided must include the school policy on uniform. What is the position on the wearing of uniform in Scottish schools? My understanding, and that of the parents to whom I have spoken and also the Lothian region education committee, is that it is not possible for either the education authority or individual schools to specify that uniform must be worn by pupils. I hope that that is the case. It is right that it should be so. When we have passed the regulations, will it be possible for a head teacher to say that it is compulsory that uniform should be worn? That needs to be spelt out.
The regulations also say that information must be provided about a school's policy on discipline. Will it be possible to have a different policy on discipline in different schools in the same local authority? It is impossible to have that under the existing regulations. The local authority has a responsibility to decide whether corporal punishment should be used in its schools. During the past few months the phasing out of corporal punishment has been agreed in the Strathclyde region. Will every school in Stathclyde have to say that corporal punishment is not being used? What is the point of providing information on a school's policy on discipline? It is wholly superfluous because the arrangements for discipline are laid down by the local education authority.
I find another part of the regulations confusing. I hope that the Minister will reply to my points, and not stick to his prepared brief. I refer to the arrangements for transport to school, or the availability of financial assistance with travelling costs. I have received a great many complaints about the arrangements for transport to school. Because of the Government's policy of cutbacks in public expenditure, and because local authorities are constrained to accept the lowest estimate for public transport, pupils are often travelling to school on buses that are potentially dangerous. When I referred the matter to the Strathclyde region, it said that there was little that could be done


because it was obliged to take the lowest tender. Those tendering for the service must save money by limiting expenditure on maintenance. They often employ the wrong drivers—for example, they do not employ full-time drivers, but people who have other jobs. That is an extremely bad practice, which can affect the safety of children. Also, because of the level of unemployment, people should not have two jobs. Will the transport arrangements be included in the information sent to parents about the Carrick Academy in my constituency? Will the headteacher say that the transport arrangements are wholly inadequate? That is all that he could say about the present arrangements.
The regulations say that schools shall provide information about their educational aims. What does that mean? Reading through the regulations, I gained the impression that the officials in St. Andrews House have no real understanding of the local authority system of education—

Mr. Maxton: We knew that, anyway.

Mr. Foulkes: We know that the secretary of the SED does not have faith in the Scottish system of education when educating his own children—rather like the Minister. The regulations show a lack of understanding of the system of public education in Scotland.
My second point relates to the effects of the policy. In spite of all the statements by Ministers and Conservative Members in favour of the policy, I cannot understand why it was introduced. No regional council, including those that are Conservative-controlled, could understand why the policy was introduced. Grampian, Tayside, Borders and other regional councils were happy with the old arrangements that considered cases on individual merits. There was no sign of hardship—

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman said that Grampian regional council was quite happy with the old arrangements, but he omitted to say that it received hundreds of applications from parents to have their children—

It being Seven o'clock and there being private business set down by direction ofTHE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Private Bills [Lords] (Suspension)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October],

That so much of the Lords Message [18th October] as relates to the Hampshire Bill [Lords] and the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Question again proposed.

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I beg to move,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.
I should explain to the House that the purpose of the motion is to enable the promoters of the Hampshire and Nottinghamshire Bills to suspend proceedings on them in this Session in order to resume them next Session at the stage which the Bills have now reached. In recent years this House has allowed the promoters of local authority rationalisation Bills to carry them over in this way so that the ratepayers do not have to bear the expense of serving new notices. If the motion i.s agreed to, the House will have a full opportunity to debate the merits of the two Bills in the next Session.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the first amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Andrew F. Bennett), with which the hon. Gentleman's second amendment may be discussed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall speak to the main Question and not move the amendment at this stage, although I understand that, because of the procedure motion, I would be in order to move the amendment later if either of the promoters of the Bills were happy to see the Bills split.
I wish to persuade the House that it must examine carefully the principle of carry-over motions. I question whether the House agrees to carry-over motions far too easily. The practice has been growing to such an extent that it is altering parliamentary procedure. One could even argue that the practice weakens parliamentary procedure and that we should not make exceptions and regularly agree to carry-over motions without debate. I also wish to show that local government Bills such as those before us should not be allowed to go through this procedure.
There are two procedures for carry-over motions that promoters can use. The procedure attempted tonight is to put down a motion in the old Session asking for the Bill to be carried over to the new Session. The alternative procedure, which is much more appropriate, would be to put down a motion in the new Session reviving the Bill. Much difficulty would be caused if such a motion were lost through insufficient time for full debate at the end of the Session. But if the promoters put down a proposal for a reviving motion in the new Session, which would have exactly the same effect, they would have sufficient time for debate. The custom of the House is to put down a motion to carry over a Bill to the new Session when it is deemed necessary. One puts down a reviving motion only after the dissolution of Parliament, when a Bill is stopped in midstream. However, either procedure could be used It would have been much more appropriate if the promoter


of this Bill had moved a reviving motion next Session rather than the present motion, especially as there are time difficulties.
After the dissolution of Parliament for a general election it is reasonable that a Bill should be carried over and I would not argue that the motion should not be passed. The promoter has no control over the dissolution of Parliament and cannot anticipate an election, so he cannot push along his business so as to avoid the problem. However, with most of the carry-over motions that have been put to the House recently, the promoter controlled his Bill and decided how long the measure should take. The promoter usually chooses whether a Bill should take up much time, because he may decide to include controversial issues. However, he could remove those issues in order to speed the progress of the Bill. If he decides to include controversial matters, he is inviting the House to spend a long time debating the matter. If the House agrees regularly to carry over Bills, promoters assume that they can spend as long as they wish and include as many controversial issues as they wish without the discipline of time that is imposed on most other measures.
There may be a growing abuse of the procedure on carry-over motions, so the House should say that it disapproves of them and that they should be used more sparingly. From the records we can see that carry-over motions were uncommon, although private Bills used to be much more common than they are now. In the nineteenth century, no carry-over motions were allowed and some Bills were presented in three or four Sessions before they were allowed to progress. I recall reading about the Bill on the Manchester ship canal, which was advanced in three Sessions. In the first two Sessions it failed to get through and the promoter had to restart the procedure before the Bill was eventually passed.
In the early part of this century there were few carryover motions. In 1903, 1905, 1907, 1908 and 1909 there were no carry-over motions. When there were such motions they resulted usually from general elections. The promoters did not anticipate the need to get a move on with their Bills and they were taken unawares by elections. Everyone accepted that they were doing their best to get their Bills through and following the elections there were general orders which revived the Bills and enabled them to continue as if there had not been a general election.
In 1911, 1912, 1915, 1916 and 1917 there were no carry-over motions. In the 1920s and 1930s there were very few. In 1945 and thereafter they were rare and, more often than not, associated with the dissolution of Parliament or a general election. In 1955, 1956 and 1957 there were none. After that there seems suddenly to have been a spate of them. In 1957–58 there were seven motions and they were not associated with a general election. That was one of the first years when the principle was used. After that the use of it seems to have fallen back. It was not used in 1960–61, 1961–62 and 1962–63. Although the practice was beginning to grow, it was not the common practice until 1977–78, when there were eight carry-over motions. In 1979–80 there were eight and in the last Session there were eight.
It appears that suddenly the House has started to agree to carry-over motions without carefully weighing the consequences. In the past five or six years they have apparently become a normal practice.
What are the consequences of carry-over motions for the House and for legislation? One of the firm principles governing most of our legislation is that measures have to be passed through the House in one 12-month period. This has many attractions for Parliament. I argue that when we pass bad legislation it is usually legislation that has been rushed through the House in a very short time without proper debate. The opposite is also true. If we allow a measure to drag for one or two years—in some instances when a general election has occurred and it has been allowed to remain before the House for three parliamentary Sessions—there is a great danger that it will suffer as much as rushed legislation.
We require proper debate but we do not want measures to be allowed to drag on and on. Members of Parliament must be able to keep track of them so that they can debate them properly, and outside groups must be able to do their lobbying and make their representations. It is a requirement of Governments and of individual Back Benchers when promoting a Bill to get it through the House in one parliamentary Session. That is a useful encouragement to the Government. It provides also some encouragement for the Opposition because they have the legitimate weapons of time and delay. If we make the legislative process completely open-ended, there will be no restriction on time, we shall cease to concentrate the Government's mind and we shall cease to offer the Opposition the many opportunities to argue and to use the weapon of delay.
If these are good principles to apply to Government legislation and to individual Back Benchers needing Private Members' legislation, they are equally good for the promoters of Private Bills. I hope that those who will argue in favour of carry-over motions will state why they should be allowed to let their measures drag on for 12 to 18 months, and sometimes for more than two years. When that happens most people tend to lose track of the debates that have taken place. It becomes extremely difficult for outside groups to lobby their Members of Parliament and to keep their lobbies relevant and effective.
If we allow legislation to continue for a long time, we discourage the principles of compromise and we make it extremely difficult for the legislation to be prepared effectively. There is some evidence that the preparation of some general Bills has been ineffective. Part of the reason for that is that the promoters have not had the discipline of time which is applied to Government legislation and which tends to insist that the Government get their legislation right, that they meet the various pressure groups and that, having done so, they make a critical judgment. When there are carry-over motions there is a tendency for that discipline to be missing and for there to be a reluctance among the promoters to iron out difficulties with all the groups which might wish to object before they start the parliamentary process. Instead of bringing forward a measure which, as near as possible, is satisfactory to all groups, they introduce a measure that is still the subject of a great deal of lobbying.
If we examine the progress of many of these general Bills, we find that they are changed greatly. The effect of the rather archaic procedures that are applied to private Bills is to prevent them being expanded. They can only be thinned down. Although many in the localities to which the Bills apply would like to see improvements put into them, they find that they cannot insert new measures. They can only put in measures which were publicised by


the promoters at the beginning. When measures have been dropped in these Bills as a result of the lobbying process, they cannot be revived except under strict procedures which effectively stifle debate.
There are strong reasons why we should apply to private legislation the principles that are applied to public legislation. Private legislation is supposed to be local and basically non-controversial politically. The procedures are designed to take that into account. It is important that private legislation should make speedy progress through the House, yet we find that many private Bills make dilatory progress.
The procedure is that promoters have to hold local meetings and to pass their Bills through local councils. The Bills are then laid before the two Houses and we have the right to present petitions against them. Many of the petitions can be anticipated. If the promoters were doing their job of getting full agreement from the people in the locality, many of the petitions would not be presented in the first place. They would not be necessary because satisfactory compromises would have been reached. Had that process taken place, there would be no need for the promoters to have clauses in their Bills that provoke petitions.
Once the petitions have been presented, a decision has to be made whether a Bill is to start in another place or in this place. It is one of the mysteries of the process and I am never sure why a Bill starts in another place or in this place. I have not been given a satisfactory explanation. It seems that, depending on the nature of a Bill, it is allocated to one place or the other. If they wish, hon. Members can have a Second Reading debate and then the Bill will go to Committee. The procedure followed in that Committee is different from that in a Public Bill Committee. It consists of four Members who are pressured to attend. The petitioners then present their case.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be a case for introducing a hearings system for local authorities so that proposals are subject to public open hearing before a Bill is brought before the House?

Mr. Bennett: That is an interesting proposition. I think that Private Bills are subject to that procedure. I believe that promoters of local government Bills have to have a town meeting at which the issues are aired, although that procedure might have been abolished recently. Proposals certainly have to go to the locally elected council.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: To the best of my knowledge town meetings or county meetings certainly do not apply to the Hampshire Bill.

Mr. Bennett: My knowledge of that is hazy. I was an Oldham borough councillor some years ago and I remember attending a town meeting on a local Bill.

Mr. Michael English: My recollection is hazy because it is 18 years since I sat on a local authority, but I remember town meetings. They were town meetings and the principles involved were probably different in the county context. The rules of the game were often different.

Mr. Bennett: We have digressed for long enough.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend accept that if town meetings or local authority hearings had been

held to discuss some of the clauses in these Bills, the promoters would not have included them and we should not have had to have tonight's debate?

Mr. Bennett: I accept that the promoters have a duty to try to produce a Bill which carries a consensus of local support and does not contain controversial measures. Bills containing controversial measures should be introduced as Private Members' Bills or as Government measures and therefore should not be subject to this procedure.

Mr. Bob Cryer: That would be even more true if local authority Bills were at variance with propositions which applied uniformly in general legislation on law and order, for example.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend leads me further than I wish to go. Later I wish to discuss jumbo Bills and to argue that they are inappropriate for such legislation. Such propositions should be dealt with in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Most local authorities will agree with that, although I am not sure whether parliamentary agents would be as enthusiastic.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large section of the Hampshire Bill was removed because of the passing of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act? In the original Hampshire Bill sections on sex shops and other matters were included, but they were deleted when the Government's measure was passed.

Mr. Bennett: That is a valid argument. One of the problems is that copies of Bills still retain such sections. If they proceed they will have to be reprinted.
After Second Reading on the Floor of the House a Committee hears petitions against the Bill. The Committee consists of four hon. Members who are required to attend because in a sense they act as a court and adjudicate on petitions. That presents difficulties because hon. Members who serve on such Committees are supposed to have no interest in the area involved. That can lead to odd results. If a Bill contains some controversial proposals an hon. Member who does not have an interest in the area can argue on Second Reading that a clause should be left out of the Bill and then, in a send-judicial Committee, he can adjudicate between the promoters and their representatives and the petitioners and their representatives on whether the clause should remain in the Bill. That is odd.
That procedure is suitable only for non-controversial Bills which contain no party political issues. Usually the Committee adjudicates between groups with property interests. In the last century private Bills were used for the promotion of railways and canals. Then it was a simple question of adjudicating between the property interests of individuals. Jumbo Bills are different.
After Committee a Bill i.s considered on Report and then on Third Reading, like any other Bill. That procedure, which is repeated in both Houses, is satisfactory for Bills with no major political consequences. It is not suitable for Bills involving major political controversies.
Time limits encourage compromise. The promoters know that unless they get a move on and thrash out compromises with the objectors it will be difficult to pass the Bill. A deadline concentrates minds and encourages compromise. If we agree to the motion we take that away and remove the requirement of the promoters to move quickly and compromise.
When I served on Oldham council I thought of many provisions that should be included in legislation. The argument was always that although such provisions would be good for Oldham, they would be controversial, upset a pressure group, shopkeepers or employers and therefore were unsuitable for a local Bill. That is a good principle which has applied for a long time. If people want controversial legislation they should not use the private Bill procedure, which is designed for non-controversial measures, but persuade individuals, political parties or the Government to promote it.
Once the procedure is made open-ended one reduces opportunities for compromise and the requirement for promoters to prepare the Bill carefully by a meeting, through local discussions or by negotiating with those who object to it. We are in danger of reducing the promoters' need for efficiency. There is always the possibility that one can put off a meeting, and put off pressing the Clerk of the House to put down a date for the Committee stage.
Once the requirement to get the legislation through quickly is removed, a conflict of interests may be produced between promoters and their agents and counsel who represent the agents in Committee. There is a tendency for the promoters to want the measure passed quickly but for their agents—conscious that their fees will depend on the amount of work and time involved—to go more slowly. If one has watched learned counsel arguing on behalf of the petitioners and replying for the objectors one wonders whether counsel are on a penny-a-word or some such fee.
One talks to people who have sat on Committees and heard how they react, with the result sometimes that whoever puts the briefest case wins. Some counsel do not have their clients' best interests in mind. This debate has increased the promoters' costs. If they had moved diligently and quickly less expense would be involved. We have all received a copy of the promoters' statement as to why they want the carry-over motion. If they had known at the beginning of the Session that there would be no carry-over motions they would have ensured that the non-controversial parts of their Bills had passed through both Houses long ago.
The principle that existed for a long time, that we do not agree lightly, if at all, to carry-over motions should be re-established. The exception would be if there were a suspension of Parliament as a result of the calling of a general election. The re-establishment of that principle would ensure that the promoters would not put one or two controversial clauses into the middle of a non-controversial private Bill. However, if they put them in they would ensure that they met the objectors immediately and reached a compromise with those objectors. In Committee they would confine themselves to putting over the essential points without being overelaborate, and the proceedings would be much more efficient.
It is important that the House makes it clear—if not by voting against the carry-over motion, by some other method—that it does not approve of carry-over motions.
We must look at the nature of the Hampshire Bill 1982 and the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill 1982. I believe that those Bills abuse the procedures of the House. They were necessary because of the local government reorganisation in 1974. For over 200 years before, local Bills contained most of the topics contained in the two

private Bills that we are discussing tonight and some other topics. There was some haphazard local legislation, that varied from parish to parish, borough to borough and county to county. With the new local government boundaries of 1974 it was argued that that legislation should be rationalised. In the Local Government Act 1972 a section provided that local provisions would lapse after a certain period unless they were re-enacted.

Mr. English: In 1984.

Mr. Bennett: That limit has been extended because of the slow progress made by some Bills. The proper procedure—following that reorganisation—would have been for the Government to present a local government (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which could have dealt with 90 per cent., if not more, of the measures contained in jumbo Bills. Belatedly, the Government presented such a Bill that removed some of the clauses contained in the Hampshire Bill 1982 and the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill 1982. Eighteen Local Government Bills have wound their way laboriously through the House, and that is an abuse of the procedure.
If we had had one local government (miscellaneous provisions) Bill in 1974 or 1975 it could have dealt with most of the common clauses without abusing the private Bill legislation procedure. We did not. They were all set out in individual private Bills. The argument for an individual private Bill is that it can be specific to a locality. However, most of the private Bills have common clauses. The first four private Bills were passed slowly because they were supposed to be piloting model clauses approved by the various Government Departments.
If model clauses are contained in every local government Bill, the Government should present a local government (miscellaneous provisions) Bill rather than expect each local authority to promote a private Bill. If the Government insisted on that, there is a strong argument for those private Bills to be for local needs specifically, and they should not contain common clauses.
That has produced a major problem. The private Bills have taken up far more time on national rather than local issues, which is why we have had more carry-over motions. Whole areas of the private Bills were unsatisfactory. They contained provisions for taxis, night trading and processions. The latter is the one that I find most unsatisfactory.
Many of the clauses have been removed from the various private Bills as a result of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Some of the Bills went through the House and were then overtaken by national legislation. We have other private Bills with clauses that still need to be overtaken by national legislation. There is a clause that deals with stray dogs. In most local authority areas it is the responsibility of the police to deal with stray dogs. Under that proposed clause local authorities would take over that responsibility and appoint dog wardens to carry out those functions. I cannot accept that that is appropriate for a local Bill, nor do I accept that provisions for stray dogs should be different in Hampshire, Nottinghamshire, Greater Manchester or any other part of the country.
Although the local authorities repeatedly asked the Government to do something about this problem, the Government have done nothing. As a result, a local


authority must promote this provision in Bills such as these, and must do so in an unsatisfactory form because it is already embodied in common clauses.
I could list many other unsatisfactory examples that do not meet the requirements of local Bills. Part II of the Hampshire Bill deals with employment opportunities, an area that has been severely vetoed by the Government. The measure also deals with highways, public health, public order—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman has an old copy of the Bill, because the revised copy that I recently got from the Vote Office lists these provisions in a different order.

Mr. Bennett: My copy was provided by the Vote Office just before the recess. I accept that many of these clauses have now disappeared as a result of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, but they were in the Bill originally, and they were controversial issues.
These Bills also dealt with night cafes, entertainment clubs, the licensing of music and the control of sex shops, all of which I believe are inappropriate. As a result of procedures in the other place, most of the issues have been removed. The clause dealing with street processions should also have been removed and included in national legislation—either that, or the provision should have been specifically local. The clause should have taken into account particular circumstances in Hampshire. For example, there may have been one requirement for Southampton and Portsmouth and another for most of the rest of the county, which is predominantly rural.
Instead, a common clause was inserted. It was not the common clause proposed by the Government or even the one agreed in respect of earlier Bills. It was a clause that was inserted as an unsatisfactory compromise in the West Midlands Bill. It was inserted then because of the delaying tactics used in the House and the need to thrash out a compromise. Sadly, the chief constable of the West Midlands said that it was completely unsatisfactory. It was also unsatisfactory to people concerned with civil liberties. I understand that that provision has not been invoked.
Such a provision should have been the subject of a parliamentary Bill. In fact, I believe that the Government suggested that they intended to bring forward a public order Bill that would have dealt with this issue. In those circumstances, I do not know why the promoters of these Bills did not drop the common clause. Had they done so, the Bills would have made rapid progress. It would not have been necessary to put down petitions against them or to take up such time discussing them. There would, therefore, have been no need for this carry-over motion. Because the promoters included a clause that was clearly controversial, they delayed the passage of their Bills and increased the cost to their local ratepayers. I hope that the ratepayers of Nottinghamshire and Hampshire are conscious of the fact that the decision to include a politically controversial clause has increased costs and led to delay.
All the provisions to which I have referred appear early in the Bills and are, I believe, wholly inappropriate. Part XI of the Hampshire Bill deals with the Itchen bridge and part XII deals with the ferry from Gosport to Portsmouth. There are also provisions dealing with Southampton, Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham—all wholly

appropriate measures for a private Bill of this sort. They are local and specific to Southampton and Hampshire, and it would be totally illogical for the Government to introduce legislation dealing with issues such as the lichen bridge.
The jumbled nature of these Bills has led to the difficulty. The fact that they have proceeded so slowly has created the precedent of carry-over motions. They take away the effectiveness of time concentrating the mind, by which good local compromises are thrashed out on the sort of issues that appear at the end of the Hampshire Bill.
I understand that good local compromises were thrashed out a long time ago which would have reduced the time taken in the House of Lords and the time that is likely to be taken in the House of Commons next Session if the motion is agreed tonight. That could have been achieved had the 13ills concentrated on local issues and not contained the controversial issues, some of which have been overtaken by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Some of those controversial issues still remain and might well be overtaken by legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech.
The House should make it quite clear that it does not approve of the general principle of carry-over motions, which ought to be used sparingly. Normally, such motions should occur only when a general election has been called unexpectedly. In such circumstances, a carry-over motion is acceptable. It is, however, unfortunate that carry-over motions should now be used so regularly.
I hope that on this occasion the promoters will get rid of the controversial clauses, especially on street processions. By doing so speedy progress could be made, and the people of Nottinghamshire and Hampshire could get many of the provisions that they undoubtedly require. Were the promoters to do so, they could get the Second Reading on the nod without any difficulty. They could well find that there will be no petitions against the Bills, as a result of which the Committee stages need only be short and formal. By moving in that direction, the promoters could well get their legislation by Christmas.
If they insist on including controversial clauses, discussion next Session will take much longer and the local authorities will face greater costs. Members of Parliament will be forced to use more time to discuss these issues. After all, time is the only means by which we can press for compromise. 1 therefore hope that someone on behalf of the promoters will make it clear tonight that they will drop the procession clauses and other areas of controversy so that the legislation can progress speedily next Session.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I support the procedural motion before the House, which will give us an opportunity to discuss the matters which the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) obviously wishes to discuss at some length. In my view, it is unworthy of him to suggest that the agents and counsel may have deliberately delayed or lengthened proceedings for their own financial gain. If that is what he is suggesting in the case of the Hampshire Bill, I refute it and suggest that he withdraw the comment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was not making any imputation against either of the promoters in this case. I chose my words carefully in that part of my speech I suggested that there can be a conflict of interests between


their duties to get the Bill through quickly and their duties to look after the financial viability of their practices. I have never had any evidence that the parliamentary agents have ever behaved in an inappropriate manner. However, I have evidence that, on occasions, some of the counsel who have been employed to argue cases on behalf of the petitioners do not seem to have felt that there was any urgency to get on with the case, and at least raised the suspicion—no more than that—that they were being paid a penny a word.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not cast aspersions in the case of the Hampshire Bill. The suggestion that this practice may have occurred elsewhere is a reflection on hon. Members of this House and of the other place who have served on Opposed Private Bill Committees. I have had the pleasure of sitting on only one of those Committees, and I know that the hon. Member of this House who was Chairman of that Committee would not have accepted dilatory proceedings without drawing that matter sternly to the attention of those concerned. If I may say so, it ill behoves any hon. Member to talk about those who promote complex and difficult Bills having a lack of proper preparation, when that hon. Member arrives here with an out-of-date copy of the Bills concerned and lists the wrong numbers of clauses in the Bill—which is what has happened.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I shall not give way. I shall finish this point and then, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, he may comment on it.
The hon. Member used the phrase "jumbo Bill". One reason why these Bills are relatively complex is that they contain much material which is basically noncontroversial in that it is simply consolidation of previously existing byelaws. Nevertheless, it is perfectly proper for the promoters to put forward detailed proposals for measures which they may not be in a position to anticipate will be included during the passage of their Bill in measures promoted by the Government at the same time. Therefore, to criticise the promoters for lack of preparation is unfair. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to intervene now.

Mr. Bennett: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but one of the duties of the promoters is to ensure that Bills are available in the Vote Office. I asked for the Bill at the time when I understood that carry-over motions were likely to go down, which was the last week before the Summer Recess. It is not my fault if the wrong copy was in the Vote Office; it is the fault of the promoters. I should not wish to raise the matter as a point of order.

Mr. English: I will. I think the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is referring to another office of another place; not to the Vote Office of this House.

Mr. Bennett: The promoters therefore have a duty to see that correct copies are there. I accept that, in the case of a reprint during the recess, it is a matter for them, but if I am preparing myself for a debate such as this it is not a matter for me to be aware of the fact that they have produced a reprint unless they carry out the clear duty to tell people that there has been a reprint.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that it is incumbent on the promoters to make sure that Members of this House and of the other place are properly informed and provided with the materials that are necessary for them to make a proper decision. I do not dispute that for a moment.
However, I dispute the suggestion that the proposal to have a carry-over motion in some way means that we have open-ended legislation. It does not mean that. Like all other legislation, this Bill would lapse at the end of the Session if it were not subject to the carry-over motions. The very fact that we can have this debate tonight shows that the matter is not open-ended, merely that it is a measure which, because of the pressure on the time of both Houses of Parliament, cannot easily be completed in one Session.
I followed the historical analysis given by the hon. Member for Stockport, North of the process of introducing carry-over motions. I noted that they were uncommon in the early nineteenth century. At that time, the pressure on parliamentary business promoted by the Government was much less than it is today. Some of us may regret that, but certainly the situation today is very different. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman was less than fair in his opening remarks when he suggested that the time that it would take for the Bill to pass through the Houses of Parliament was controlled by the promoters. He suggested later that if they took out controversial measures there might not be much opposition and the Bill could go through quickly. An innocuous Bill could go through quickly, whereas a controversial Bill would take longer. However, that should not be taken to mean that the time taken on debate in either House is within the control of the promoters. It is not. If there is not enough time for the Bill to be passed before the end of the Session, a carry-over motion is perfectly reasonable.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman say on what basis he believes that a Ten-Minute Bill should have less priority for support by a carry-over motion than private business of the kind that we are discussing this evening?

Mr. Griffiths: I answer in a general sense, that business promoted by the Government or by an individual Member—for example, a Private Member's Bill, or a Ten-Minute Bill—has the great advantage of being the direct responsibility of persons who are determined to explore every avenue to carry the Bill through as quickly as possible. It has the advantage of having the immediate personal attention of Ministers or individual Members. The promoters of a private Bill depend on the good will of the House for a measure to pass. They can therefore expect that it will not necessarily receive the priority that a Government measure would receive.
The hon. Member asked me about Ten-Minute Bills, but perhaps I would be out of order if I were to go into detail on the matter. I suggest, however, that many Ten-Minute Bills are not serious proposals when they are brought in during the last few days of a Session, as, I understand, has happened on occasions. It is known that those Bills will fall. Promoters of private Bills such as the Hampshire and Nottinghamshire Bills have a major discipline which the hon. Member for Stockport, North did not recognise, and that is the financial discipline of the costs that they have already incurred. There is the incentive to ensure that the Bill is presented properly so that it can make rapid progress through the House.
The hon. Gentleman made much of the point that if a Bill contained nothing controversial it would make rapid progress. Perhaps I should say that it is almost impossible to think of anything that would not be controversial in the House. The hon. Gentleman suggested that if one clause were removed, both sides, all parties, all hon. Members, would pass the Bill on the nod. Was he authorised to make such a statement? It is highly unlikely that he speaks for everyone who might wish to object to parts of the Bills. It is not fair to make such sweeping statements. That is why I object to the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has presented his case tonight. He was ungenerous to the promoters and to the House which will deal with the matter.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Bennett rose—

Mr. Griffiths: No, I shall not give way again.
All we are asking tonight is that a measure which was properly considered, which meticulously met the legal obligations within the areas from which it was promoted, the broad content of which has been known for a long time so that it could be considered in advance, should be made available for consideration in the House in the next Session.
The hon. Gentleman said that people might lose track of the argument if Bills were to run on for such a period. That will not happen. When the measure comes before the House, there will be the fullest opportunity, if hon. Members so wish, for a series of discussions—first, on the broad principle and, secondly, on the details. I have greater confidence in the hon. Gentleman's powers of memory than he appears to have.
If the carry-over motion is not carried tonight the ratepayers of the counties will be put to inordinate and unreasonable expense for no purpose whatever because the same measures will have to be brought back and the same issues argued in future. There is no way in which the motion reduces any hon. Member's right to look critically at and discuss the measures contained in either of the Bills as long as is proper within the rules of the House. I for one would wish to consider the matters closely and to debate them at a later stage. We are asking for something perfectly reasonable, for which there are adequate precedents and on which the House should not divide.

Mr. Michael English: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and I agree with much of what he said. There is a danger in the excessive use of carry-over motions. Nobody who thought about it would dispute that. I would slightly part company with him when he says that they should happen at dissolutions. If he thinks about it, he will see that it would depend on which House the Bill had been in. Although the other place is unaffected by a dissolution, this House may completely reverse its political views and therefore it may be undesirable to carry a Bill in one direction over a dissolution. It does not matter if the Bill has been through the other place, because that remains unchanged, but it might matter if it had passed through this House but not through the other place.
Apart from that, my hon. Friend is right to say that carry-over motions have increased and should be diminished. However, there is a separate case to be made for what my hon. Friend described as "jumbo" Bills. The

Act which reorganised local government, which was passed some 10 years ago, was crude in several ways, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree. In particular it was crude in the way in which it prospectively abolished all private legislation and left everybody to return to the House to reinstitute it.
I must part company with my hon. Friend who was unfair to the promoters, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said, although my hon. Friend did try to explain that he did not mean what he started out by saying. I can speak for the Nottinghamshire Bill. It was in the other place that the Bill took a long time. There were reasons for that which I need not go into, but, upon reflection, my hon. Friend may realise that the other place must bear some share of responsibility as well as the promoters. It is the procedures in the other place that are involved here, just as if a Bill took a long time in this House it would be partly our responsibility, not merely that of the promoters. My hon. Friend was unfair in trying to off load all the responsibility on to Nottinghamshire county council or Hampshire county council, the promoters of the Bills.
I disagree with my hon. Friend's remarks about controversial Bills. The whole purpose of the House is not merely to pass non-controversial legislation but to pass controversial legislation. It must resolve—in what used to be called "the grand inquest of the nation"—controversy in a democratic way without using bullets.
I cannot remember whether the original Act setting up a police force was public or private, but I know that it applied only to Cheshire, where it came from, so I strongly suspect that it may have been a private Act. However. I do know that the early railway Acts were private. To take a slice of land from Liverpool to Manchester or from Bristol to London at a time of revolution could not have been done by Government legislation. In 1832 when Brunel was putting his proposals to the Bristol city council the troops were outside firing on the crowd and the Government had much more important matters to consider. Railways were built only because they were promoted by private legislation. If my hon. Friend thinks that it was non-controversial legislation, he should know that the first Great Western Railway Bill was thrown out by the House because the landowners from Bristol to London objected. It was the second Bill that got through and that was not simply as a result of compromising with everybody. The principle of controversy must remain in our lives.
Having stated that as a principle I must also say that my hon. Friend was unfair about Nottinghamshire. He did not make the same points on the other Bills that did not contain the clause to which he principally objects—the processions clause. I should explain, as nobody else has, that the processions clause does not enable processions to be banned—that is and should be in a public Act because it is a matter of deep concern to civil rights. It merely asks people to give notice of their intention to process. It does not take away from them the power to do so. That is all it does. It is not controversial in Nottinghamshire, only lo my hon. Friend, because the provision has existed in Nottingham since 1929.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been several debates in the House when the matter has been raised and there has been dissent? It i.s seen as a controversial issue and the consensus amongst


hon. Members to whom I have talked—not exclusively Labour Members—is that national legislation is required with the support of the full House, not localised powers. Because an authority once had such legislation does not mean that it is right.

Mr. English: It does. But for the Local Government Act 1972 the provision would have continued and nobody would have mentioned it because it is not controversial in Nottingham.
In 1929 the city of Nottingham obtained such a power. People elsewhere in the county did not want it. I doubt if people then processed through the lush countryside of Nottinghamshire as frequently as they did through the city. However, in 1951, with the growth of suburbs, the county council obtained such a power. It differed only in the length of notice. The power that we are now discussing also differs in the length of notice that is required, which I would willingly discuss with my hon. Friend at an appropriate stage. For example, perhaps the length of notice set out in the Bill should be changed.
However, those are details. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North may think that the measure is controversial and other hon. Members may think so, but they do not represent Nottinghamshire constituencies and the Bill is not controversial in Nottinghamshire. As it applies only to Nottinghamshire, there is something to be said for allowing Nottinghamshire county council, and for that matter Hampshire county council, to have their way.

Mr. Peter Snape: I hesitate to intervene in this discussion among friends, but I have long cherished an ambition to dispense some advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), as I have quite often been the recipient of such advice over the years. I respectfully remind my hon. Friend that the Chamber is a national Chamber and debates laws that apply—or that it may be thought should apply—throughout the country. We are not here merely to scratch round our own backyards—desirable as that might be in Nottinghamshire or even West Bromwich.

Mr. English: I am always ready to take advice from my juniors. On Second Reading it would be fair to use such an argument. However, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North objects to only one clause and that he allowed the carry-over motions on all the other Bills to go through. If he objects to only one clause, he should raise the matter at the appropriate stage, which—in the case of private Bills—is the Committee stage for those who are not Members of Parliament and the Report stage for hon. Members. It is unnecessary to increase the promoters' costs, which will ultimately fall on Nottinghamshire's ratepayers and the country's taxpayers. It is unnecessary to increase their costs merely to deal with a Committee point that could easily be dealt with later if the motion is passed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not my hon. Friend accept that in these days of social and economic tension, Bills that include such clauses are of far more national importance than they might have been years ago, when they may have been less important to local authorities and more acceptable to the wider public?

Mr. English: Yes, but will not my hon. Friend accept that I know far more about the social tensions in

Nottingham than he does? The Bill concerns Nottinghamshire and it should be carried over into the next Session so that such points can be discussed at the proper stages.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I am in a somewhat unusual position, because I am defending the passage of a Bill that is required by a Labour county council—my local county council—against the wishes of one Opposition Member in particular, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I entirely agree with my colleague from Nottinghamshire, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English): this is a matter for Nottinghamshire. Some of us greatly resent the fact that the hon. Member for Stockport, North should choose to mount a campaign about public processions under the pretext of objecting to one of the clauses.
Like my colleague, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, I speak only for Nottinghamshire. My colleagues from Hampshire can speak for themselves. I shall speak purely to the Nottinghamshire Bill. It is largely a consolidation measure. Of course, the scope of the original Bill was greatly reduced by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1981. Nevertheless, 22 substantive clauses remain which are law in Nottinghamshire. Nottinghamshire wants that law re-enacted.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North made a great noise about slipping in controversial clauses that some hon. Members might not like if they knew about them. However, the law in Nottinghamshire is as it is today, and it is as required in the Bill. It came ill from the hon. Gentleman to complain about the verbosity of the Bill's promoters when he took over 45 minutes to make a couple of points.
There is nothing unusual or new about this county council Bill. All that we in the county, regardless of party, ask is that it should be carried over into the next Session and should not be allowed to lapse with the end of this Session. We are not even asking that it should be accepted without qualification or debate. We ask only that it should be carried over so that the controversial point can be discussed on its merits at the next stage.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West pointed out, much time, money, research and expense has gone into the Bill and in promoting and perfecting it as far as is humanly possible. There will be great anger in our county—a Labour-controlled county—if the Bill is not carried over and if the thousands of pounds spent on promoting it are wasted because of the prejudices of the hon. Member for Stockport, North about giving advance notice of street processions.
The Bill is wanted in Nottinghamshire. We in Nottinghamshire do not want ratepayers' money to be wasted by refusing to carry over the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Nottinghamshire and Hampshire Bills will be carried over and considered on their merits at the appropriate stage in the House and that they will not lapse at the end of the Session.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has been much criticised, but I congratulate him on raising this issue so that it can be debated in the Chamber. I was interested


to hear his historical account of carry-over motions, which went back to the last century. I suspect that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) was right to say that there were fewer carry-over motions then than there are now because there was less legislation. However, I cannot support the hon. Member for Stockport, North. If there is a Division I shall support the carry-over motion.
The Bill was originally deposited in the other place in November 1981. It is not the promoter's fault that the House has not yet discussed it. However, I agree with the hon. Member that Hampshire county council—I can speak only for Hampshire—has been unwise to include in a private Bill a clause that it knew would be controversial. I object to the clause just as much as the hon. Member does and so do many other hon. Members. Hampshire county council knew that the clause would delay the Bill's passage through the House. Indeed, it will do so even if the carry-over motion is accepted.
I wrote to the county secretary in Hampshire, Mr. Leyland, over a year ago, when the Bill was deposited, and I told him that. Of course, no notice was taken. The trouble with Hampshire is that it is a one-party State and a rather arrogant one at that. It does not take kindly to representations from minorities, whether they are political parties or individuals. It always thinks that it knows best. I repeated that warning at a meeting that is held once or twice a year between Members of Parliament for Hampshire and the chairmen of the committees. Hampshire county council chose to ignore that warning and that is its affair. However, the ratepayers of Hampshire will ultimately pay more money to have the Bill enacted than might otherwise have been the case.
It would clearly be wrong to stop the Bill now and force the promoter to produce a whole new Bill, as that would be extremely expensive. Nevertheless, the promoter will find unfortunately when we reach the later stages of the Bill's passage that unless it is prepared to compromise on this point—it is not a vital issue—it may not get the Bill until this time next year. As the hon. Member for Stockport North said, if the clause were dropped the whole thing could he over by Christmas or shortly after. I hope that that message will be taken back to Hampshire county council.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West said that he was happy with the clause in relation to Nottingham. That is fair enough. Nottingham can speak for itself, but in Southampton there are certainly difficulties. I shall not go into this in detail, but there are particular difficulties about giving 72 hours' notice of processions in a sea port. About a year ago, people from the "QE2" wished to march through the streets of Southampton to the Cunard offices to protest at the proposed sale of the ship. They could not possibly have given 72 hours' notice, as they did not know at what time the ship would come in. There is no guarantee that a ship will come in on time.
It would be quite wrong if marches of that kind were prevented. It may be all right if one has an excellent chief constable, as we have at present, and an accommodation can be reached, but not all chief constables are as good as ours and problems may arise for us later.

Mr. English: I did not say that I was entirely happy with every clause in the Bill. Indeed, I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that I should be happy to discuss with him the details of the clause to which he objects and it might well

be that it should he altered. I do not intend to do that on the Floor of the House. This is certainly not the proper stage to do it.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall not go into that too deeply, as we shall be debating the substance of the Bill at a later stage. It is also important that the carry-over motion be passed today because a number of items in the Bill—most of them purely local—are matters of considerable importance and urgency. I shall not go into the merits of any of them, but I wish to show that one or two of them are urgent.
There is, for example, a provision to restrict the speed of vessels on the river Hamble, where there have been accidents. If the Bill is delayed for a further nine months, more accidents may occur before the restriction comes into force. There is also a provision relating to the power to close Mayflower park in my constituency for an increased number of days. Southampton now has the second largest boat show in the country and it is improving all the time. Next year the organisers wish to lengthen the period of the boat show. That would involve closing the park to public access for a certain period. That is controversial in itself, and I believe that there was a petition against it locally. The important factor, however, is that it takes a long time to plan a boat show and the organisers need to know whether they can extend the boat show next year. For that to be possible, the Bill will certainly have to be passed soon after Christmas.
Therefore, a number of very desirable provisions are being held up due to the stubbornness of Hampshire county council in insisting on one clause when everyone knows that a number of hon. Members object to it. There may be other clauses to which individual hon. Members object, but a number of hon. Members object to that one and the Bill will have a sticky passage through the House if it remains in the Bill.
I shall vote for the carry-over motion if there is a Division, because otherwise the 99 per cent. of the Bill concerning provisions that I wish to see in operation cannot come into force and because it would cost a great deal of money to the ratepayers. Nevertheless, even at this late stage I suggest that the promoter should drop this clause—nothing would be lost as a result—so that we may proceed rapidly to get the Bill through the House in the next Session.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): It may assist the House if I intervene briefly at this stage to outline the Government's view.
As has been mentioned, the Bills are promoted by the county councils of Hampshire and Nottingham primarily to save legislation which applies in their respective areas and is regarded as essential but which would otherwise lapse under section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. The case for supporting the motion has been eloquently made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and there is no need for me to repeat what they have said.
I should stress that a considerable amount of hard work and money has been expended by the authorities concerned with the promotion of the Bills, and the Government's view is that the Bills should be allowed to continue their progress through Parliament and that it


would be a waste of resources both for the local authorities and for Parliament if the Bills had to start their passage afresh.
The view of the Government is that the Bills should not be allowed to fall simply because of objections to individual provisions. There are more appropriate occasions in the progress of the Bills through Parliament when these individual provisions can be discussed, considered and, if necessary, opposed—for example, in Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not an affront to the House for a Minister to suggest that the saving of money in the pursuit and success of legislation is a matter that should be taken into account by the House in its deliberations on legislation?

Sir George Young: It is no such thing. I know that the Opposition have no concern about public expenditure, but we take very seriously the impact of the suggestion that has been made on the ratepayers concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it not be argued that the point that I made in my intervention is a valid point for the Chair? The proposition has been put to the House that to interfere with the process of legislation in any way at a cost to the local authority would be irresponsible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair.

Sir George Young: I in no way detract from the remarks that I made. I believe that the House, being accountable for public expenditure, must take into account the consequences of not rolling the Bills over. It would mean that a certain amount of money would simply go down the drain. That may be of no consequence to the Opposition, but it is of consequence to us.
In my view, and in the view of the Government, it would be unfortunate if the House were not to agree to the motion. I therefore urge the House to allow the Bills to be carried over in the usual way and to agree to the motion.

Mr. Peter Snape: In the past hour and a half we have had a fairly full debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) whose concern about legislation in the House in general and about civil liberties throughout the country in particular is well known and appreciated, certainly by Opposition Members. I remember an occasion—I think that it was in 1978—when my hon. Friend spoke at some length about similar legislation on very much the same grounds as he argued today because of his desire to preserve civil liberties throughout the country. That is an extremely creditable act on his part and the fact that he took forty-five minutes of the House's time reflects credit on him and on the procedures of the House rather than leaving him open to criticism.
The sponsors of the Hampshire Bill have been told emphatically by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) that he considers the clause to be controversial. It is a perfectly legitimate use of the procedures of the House to record those objections. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North at no time in his speech indicated that he would vote against the Bill.

That is a matter for him to decide, but I hope that he does not. Certainly, he has left the promoters of the Bills in no doubt where he stands and where other Opposition Members stand if the two fairly objectionable clauses remain in the Bills in the next Session.
It was pointed out by the promoters in their statement that 15 Bills have been promoted for other counties where it has been found necessary to carry over the Bills into a second Session by procedural motions passed by both Houses. I echo a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). If there are carry-over procedures for private Bills there should be such procedures for other proposed legislation, such as yesterday's Ten-Minute Bill on concessionary television licences and other important matters. In a rather throw-away line, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that Ten-Minute Bills were not important but were more for propaganda purposes than anything else. Ten-Minute Bills of great importance including those introduced by hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have found their way on to the Statute Book. The procedures adopted for county council Bills put them in a more fortunate position than other legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North said earlier that the time taken up by the Bills, particularly in another place, would mean perhaps that people would lose track of some of the important issues. No one would ever suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport would lose track of these matters, regardless of how long the procedures took. He rightly said that it should be the duty of the promoters of the Bills to ensure that they can be passed in one Session. Promoters are tempted to spatchcock everything into such Bills because of the procedures that have been adopted in recent years. Agents and promoters can decide to put virtually anything they like into such Bills. They might think that it does not matter how controversial the Bills happen to be because the House of Commons or another place will give them the right to carry over into the next Session of Parliament. Therefore they might believe that the more they include the better. I shall not suggest that the more they include, the bigger the fee, because hon. Members on the Conservative Benches became angry earlier when it was suggested that a penny per word, a pound per word or a guinea per word might be the .going rate. Certainly, the temptation exists to include as much as possible in the Bills because of the rather generous procedures that are adopted for county council Bills and only for county council Bills.

Mr. English: Since the subject has been mentioned, I believe it is worth pointing out that one of the principal causes, if not the principal cause, of delay to the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill in the Lords was the objection by a national lobby on behalf of the providers of sports services. They objected to the county council installing in Nottinghamshire an invention of our leisure services officer. They did not see why that should be done. One cannot foresee controversies of that nature. I suggest that my hon. Friends who are criticising the delay might consider the delay is worth while.

Mr. Snape: There is a difference between the type of controversy outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and what should be a national concern for civil liberties expressed by my hon.


Friend the Member for Stockport, North. Two other Bills which came forward at the same time—the Cornwall County Council Bill [Lords] and the County of Lancashire Bill [Lords]—passed through the House seven days ago without comment or opposition, precisely because the offending clauses had been withdrawn. If the promoters are anxious to see the Bills on the statute book, again they should look at the offending clauses.
As my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Itchen said, if the clauses are left in, in the debate in the next Session there will be considerable opposition and the prospect of getting the Bills on to the statute book sooner rather than later will be considerably diminished. Hon. Members on the Government Benches might object, but the House of Commons is here to protect civil liberties and adequately to debate such legislation.
It was implied by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that it is a purely parochial matter and nothing to do with hon. Members who do not reside within the particular county. It is a sad day when that can be said. Earlier, perhaps before the hon. Member for Newark joined us, when we were dealing with a controversial clause in a Bill promoted by a Labour-controlled county council—the West Midlands county council, where my constituency lies—the Conservative Opposition took the unprecedented step of issuing a three-line Whip to ensure that their Members voted against it. Let us have no nonsense about its being a parochial matter.
I hesitate to cross swords again with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, but the fact that the provision for giving notice of processions has been law in Nottingham since 1929 is not a logical argument in 1982. Many things may have happened in Nottingham in 1929 that we should frown upon today. There should be standardisation throughout the country on the crucial question of civil liberties and processions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The clause applying to Nottingham will be different in time, but if it is the same provision that applies in many other counties, it has never been invoked. I wonder whether it has ever been used in Nottingham. I suspect not, and that if questioned the chief constable would say that he had never dreamt of using it.

Mr. English: In Nottingham it is regular practice for anyone wishing to organise a procession to give notice of the fact. The provision is used every day. I suspect that no one has ever been prosecuted for not giving notice, but I should have to check that.

Mr. Snape: Misgivings have rightly been expressed in the debate, and that is the purpose of the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North will not take the issue to a vote. If the motion fell it would cause considerable expense to the ratepayers of Nottinghamshire and Hampshire. After what has been said about the desirability of removing the clauses, from my sketchy knowledge of the procedures of the House, I believe that there may be no less than six opportunities for my hon. Friend to debate the clauses in the next Session. I know that I speak for both sides of the House when I say how much we look forward to that.
I hope that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Itchen will allow the proposal to go forward. We can resume the debate in the next Session.

Sir David Price: I should like to follow the trenchant comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell).
It is worth pointing out to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that the Hampshire Bill, and, I believe, also the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill, were deposited in another place early in the Session in November 1981. Neither this House nor the promoters can be held responsible for the fact that the Bills have not completed all their stages. That raises issues about how complicated private Bills are handled in another place. However, that fact should not be held against the promoters of either the Hampshire Bill or the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill. The matter could be taken up on another occasion by the Select Committee on Procedure.
I should like to make this point about what is controversial and what is not. I understand that no objection was taken in another place to the offending clause 7 in the Hampshire Bill. There was no petition. Not until it came to this House was there an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his views known. However, as has been said, the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunities to express his disagreement.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the National Council for Civil Liberties has petitioned against clause 7. It has found the process of putting in a petition to the House of Lords and the House of Commons expensive. Therefore, recently it has made its petitions to the House of Commons rather than to the House of Lords. Thus, if the clause remains in the Bill there will be a petition to the House of Commons.

Sir David Price: The hon. Gentleman has given full notice of that. The promoters will take that into account. I was saying that the fact that the clause was not petitioned against in another place cannot be held against the promoters. They are not responsible for the delay: hence the request for the carry-over. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not making a good point. He has given plenty of notice of his objection. That is what the procedure is all about. I am tempted to discuss the offending matter with the hon. Gentleman but I might go out of order if I did so. He will have a proper opportunity to express his views.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there have been that number of large-ish county council Bills needing carry-over provisions. The figure quoted is 15. The reason is not a desire on the part of county councils to take special powers to themselves. It arises out of the Local Government Act 1972, and for that reason alone I hope that when this phase is over—we are nearly at the end of it—there will be a diminution of Bills requiring carry-over provisions. We should not have to have so many of them. The current circumstances arise from the Local Government Act 1972.
The hon. Gentleman said that local authority Bills should deal primarily with local matters. If he looks through the revised Bill he will find that the vast majority of the provisions are very local. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen and I both know the importance of the Itchen bridge, the Mayflower Park—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: And the Hamble river.

Sir David Price: —and the Hamble river. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's water skiing will be much safer if the Bill is passed.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North will see that it is right and fair that he should agree to the passing of this motion this evening.

Mr. Bob Cryer: One of the great strengths of the House of Commons is that when something seems routine and ordinary there is always someone, as has been notably demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who picks out important aspects and refuses to allow the House to become a rubber stamp for procedure. That is important, because too many of our elected and appointed bodies up and down the land, which should protect people's rights and which have duties and obligations, tend to deal with matters too cursorily. If promoters of Bills feel that the House of Commons would accept a carry-over motion cursorily and in a routine fashion on the last Wednesday of the Session when there is no great attendance and when the business that is being dealt with is essentially of a regional character, they had better think again. The debate has demonstrated that there is cause for concern and that the promoters should understandably understand that this is a legislative chamber and not a body that automatically accepts proposals.
I see that the Minister has just left, having uttered his three or four sentences. I am sorry that he has done so. He said that not to pass the carry-over motion would be a waste of the resources that have already gone into making progress on the Bill so far. I am fully aware of that.
The Opposition are anxious to see resources far better distributed than the Government allow. We are not a spendthrift Opposition. We want resources to be moved away from the people who will buy Britoil shares, for example, when the Government bonanza that was announced today is instituted, towards working men and women and their families. Of course we are examining resources but against that we must bear in mind any potential loss of civil liberties that might arise from the legislation. Inevitably, one must make a judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) rightly protested that expenditure incurred by two Administrations because they had misjudged the legislation they were promoting could not be an overwhelming objection that would allow legislation to be given carte blanche—a nod and a wink and a few reservations. We must make a judgment. We must say, "All right, there has been some expenditure but is the loss of civil liberty greater?" That is much more important than the amount of money that has been spent by the local authority.
I was interested to learn that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen has already pointed out to Hampshire county council, the promoters of the Bill, that the processions clause would cause difficulty. If hon. Members are to judge whether to debate or to oppose a Bill, they must bear in mind that it is not simply a matter of expenditure. It appears from the debate so far that it is Hampshire county council's wilful insistence on the inclusion of this clause that has caused opposition and delay. I hope that that point is noted.
I do not wish to go into the merits of the matter. The controversial public order clauses that are common to both

Bills—clause 6 in the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill and clause 7 in the Hampshire Bill—are matters for universal legislation. It is absurd that someone in Nottinghamshire should be placed under different requirements for a procession than he would be in West Yorkshire or in the West Midlands.
Many of the clauses in the Hampshire Bill have become otiose purely because it has taken so much time. Moreover, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 has overtaken the legislation and imposed universal standards. I was on the Standing Committee that considered that legislation. One of the points made to the Committee about the powers of local authorities concerning sex shops was that several different standards would be proposed in private legislation. The Government felt that it was desirable to have a common standard for the whole of the United Kingdom. That legislation was therefore put on the statute book.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall the "People's March for Jobs". Its organisers had to satisfy 10 sets of regulations to give proper notification of that procession.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend underlines my point. Local authorities, through their associations, can make representations to the Government about such matters, rather than insisting on public order clauses in their private legislation. I well understand that a county council may have a particular problem for which it requires additional powers fairly rapidly. It is sensible that it should take into account the desirability of universal legislation and also the fact that the Government are regularly in correspondence with, and hold regular meetings with, local authority associations. At those meetings, local authorities put forward matters of concern which require general legislation in a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I have no doubt that such an item of legislation will be put forward in the next Session of Parliament, which begins on 3 November. I hope that the promoters will bear that in mind. We are conscious of the needs of local authorities.
If a local authority insists on controversial measures, which, it can be strongly argued, reduce the civil liberties of residents, and which, on past experience, will put the residents at a serious disadvantage, the desire for local authority powers to deal with local matters is obviously subordinate to its insistence on the public order requirement. It insists on that requirement, even though the Government recognise that it must be the subject of national legislation. Such points should be considered in any carry-over motion.
The two clauses that we are considering—and I do not wish to discuss the merits—contain provisions that provide subordinate powers to a chief constable to produce codes of practice. I am not sure that that is entirely desirable because such codes would have a semi-legal status, much the same as the codes that have been legislated for in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which the Health and Safety at Work Commission produces. It is an important issue if private legislation provides what amounts to subordinate powers to an individual official without any degree of accountability. It also gives rise to a great deal of controversy, ambiguity and, inevitably—if a matter must be decided—gives power to the courts to make a decision.
Where there is such a doubt, such a clause is better removed so that local authorities concentrate on what they can do best. As elected bodies, they are there to look after the needs of the local electorate. It is a matter of paramount importance, which local authorities should bear in mind.

Mr. English: I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to the promoters before the clause reaches the Committee stage.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is very helpful. I am sure that the debate will be read by the promoters and our words borne in mind. There will be further opportunities to debate the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North naturally wishes to see local powers developed for local authorities where a good case can be made, but we must also point out that we are keen to scrutinise local powers. Should controversial clauses be contained, we must discuss in detail the relative values that local authorities are placing on public order clauses in relation to their local requirements. We must discuss in great and lengthy detail the provisions of the legislation. Our debate provides a good opportunity to guide those who are seeking those powers. We recognise the importance of the legislation but we also recognise the importance of preserving civil liberties such as the right to demonstrate. For example, mothers who are angered because a child has been injured on a pedestrian crossing may wish to give vent to their anger by marching to their local county council offices immediately.
The rights of people in a democratic society to march in procession have been debated extensively when we considered local authority legislation in the House and such rights will be debated again, unless, of course, local authorities feel that legislation for them should concentrate primarily on local need and local order clauses that are brought into line with other local authority legislation.
This debate has provided a good opportunity for several hon. Members who feel strongly about civil liberties to point the way to our future conduct.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The purpose of the debate is not to discuss clauses in the Bills before us but to decide whether the House should approve the carry-over motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) made a brilliant exposition on carry-over motions which we all found informative. It is a pity that more hon. Members were not present to listen to his speech. Much of what my hon. Friend said was new and hon. Members would have found it helpful in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) clarified what would happen in the event of carry-over motions coinciding with a general election and the complications that might arise depending on the stage the Bill had reached.
The present method by which legislation falls if it has not completed its stages through the House by the end of the Session is excellent, but I cannot understand why certain business takes precedence. Some of the Private Members' Bills on the Order Paper today, whether they be standard Private Members' Bills or Ten-Minute Bills, do not invite the same treatment as the Bills that we are considering. The Bills on the Order Paper today include the Disposal of Public Assets (Commercial Information)

Bill, the Water Rates (Provision of Rebates) Bill, the Leasehold Flats Reform Bill, the Antiquities Bill and a Bill especially interesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West—the Succession to the Crown Bill that my hon. Friend introduced and that I am sure he would wish to see continued by a carry-over motion. However, my hon. Friend's Bill is obstructed by the legislative process, whereas this measure is supported by it.
I have listened to the entire debate, but I cannot understand the difference between the two types of Bill. We have the Falkland Islands (British Citizenship) Bill, the University Grants Bill, the Trade Union (Amendment) Bill—dear to the hearts of many Tory Members—the Mobile Homes (Amendment) Bill, the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 (Amendment) Bill, my own Bill, The Competition Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill, the Maritime Safety Bill and the Registration of Commercial Lobbying Interests Bill.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has provided a useful illustration. The Registration of Commercial Lobbying Interests Bill received assent from both sides of the House. It was a startling exposition based only on commercial lobbying interests' documents and their influence. That Bill should have been granted the benefit of a carry-over motion in order to protect the good name of Parliament. I am at a loss to understand why the Government did not grant a carry-over motion on that Bill and on the Bill presented yesterday to give concessionary licences to old-age pensioners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is carried too far down that route, may I remind him that we are dealing with the Lords resolution and not with action that the Government might take?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that you would accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker., that it is appropriate to draw parallels. The procedure that applies to the measures that we are debating should also apply to those that I listed, but it does not. Other Bills are of importance to my hon. Friends from Scotland. The Scottish Parliament Bill would invite comment from my hon. Friends because they support it passionately. The concessionary television licences Bill was carried yesterday by a majority larger than for any other Bill carried by the House since I have been a Member. It had a majority of 187, which should ensure that it is carried over to next Session. However, that is not to be the case. We are required to carry over a measure that many of us find positively objectionable. I am sorry to say that, because it was promoted by a Labour-controlled authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) believes that many issues must be discussed this evening. He may be aware that last year my county brought the Cumbria Bill before the House. Throughout the proceedings on that Bill we were aware that the deadline was the end of the Session. Some hon. Members may be interested to know that we would have compromised on that Bill had we been pushed to the last few days of the Session. By providing a carry-over motion, the House has enabled two county councils to avoid taking a decision that they would otherwise have taken. If those councils had known that they would lose the processions clauses in the private Bills they would have agreed to a compromise and we would not be here tonight.

Mr. English: I have already told the House that that was not the reason for the delay of the Bill in another place. The reason for the delay was that the civil engineering contractors did not wish the county council to instal an invention which its own leisure services officer had invented. The hon. Member's technique is a tool that can be put to uses, of some of which the hon. Gentleman might disapprove.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Even in the Cumbria Bill, some caravan clubs used their lobbyists in the House to obstruct our legislation. We had to accept that. It was the way of the House. We had to take that into account in whatever decisions and deliberations took place. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West and his friends in Nottingham must accept that that is the way that this place works.

Sir David Price: Am I correct in saying that the Cumbria Bill had come to this place a second time?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It may well have done. If it was brought before the House before I was elected to this place, that is something of which I was not aware. In this instance, I am aware only of what has been brought before the House since I have been a Member of it.
The question remains "What will happen next year?". I am one of those who religiously takes his place at Question Time, especially during questions to the Leader of the House, which are put to him on a Thursday afternoon every week. I notice that when hon. Members ask for time to be given for waiting debates to enable them to take place the right hon. Gentleman always talks about the pressure of time. He talks about these matters being considered, being under consideration or of thought and consideration being given to them. Invariably the answer is "No, time cannot be given". If Nottinghamshire county council and Hampshire county council had been aware of the pressure that is on us as Members, they would have thought it wise to withdraw the clause and to allow the measures their expeditious passage through the procedures of the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I ask for the leave of the House to speak again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not move the amendment at the beginning of the debate and it does not seem that it would help the procedures of the House if I were to move it now. It will be far better if we do not vote against the proposal that is before us, but I hope that the promoters of the two Bills will have taken notice of the feeling in the House. I hope that promoters generally will note that we should not regularly carry Bills over from one Session to another.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Education, Scotland (School and Placing Information)

Postponed proceeding on Question resumed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I call the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Foulkes: Before our debate was interrupted I had allowed the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) to intervene. I am prepared now to take the rest of this intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said that many local authorities, including Conservative authorities—he referred especially to the Grampian region—accepted zoning and would be happy to continue the operation. I can say as the Member who represents Aberdeenshire, East that I have received hundreds of representations from parents who wish to have parental choice and for their children to go to the school of their choice.

Mr. Maxton: How many?

Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) wishes to come to my office, I shall show him the letters. I have had hundreds of applications from parents who want to send their children to schools that are not zoned by the local authority. I am glad to say that in many respects the Grampian regional council has adhered to the principle.

Mr. Foulkes: I am very tolerant at this time of night and during this debate to allow such an intervention. You are even more tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing such a long intervention. However, I shall deal with it. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East was indulging in hyperbole when he talked of hundreds of letters.

Mr. Maxton: May we see them?

Mr. Foulkes: I repeat the challenge. I hope that the letters will be available so that we may see them. I am sceptical about the claim. I am not a resident of the Grampian region, but I was educated there. I went to a local school and I did not encounter such problems in Keith. I have had discussions with a chairman of the Grampian education committee and a director of education for the area. I was told that there was no need in Grampiam for any change in the arrangements for the transfer of children from primary to secondary education or for the intake of children into primary school. That was the view of educationists in Tayside.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—

Mr. Foulkes: That is an amazing Pavlovian reaction. As soon as I mention Tayside, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) leaps to his feet. I am happy to hear what he says.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is important to set the record straight. Tayside has always operated parents' choice. My children go to school in Tayside and my constituents are


involved. There has been no change in what Tayside does since the passage of the Act. Parents' choice is still available. It is said that such choice is not practised in other parts of Scotland. The rest of Scotland is following Tayside's example.

Mr. Foulkes: That underlines what I was saying. Miss Carnegy—now Lady Carnegy—the director of education, and others in Tayside made it clear that there was no need for legislation in Tayside. It was made clear that there was no need for legislation in Grampian or in Strathclyde. That was said by elected Conservatives.

Mr. McQuarrie: Nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: Shouting "Nonsense" from a sedentary position merely shows that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East is talking nonsense. I am clear about the position.
Local authorities are required to change the system although the system was adequate and provided choice. In Tayside, Grampian, Lothian and Strathclyde it was normal for children to attend their local school. If their parents wanted them to go to another school, they would request replacement and that would be considered by a transfer committee. In the majority of cases the transfer was granted. When it was refused the parents could appeal and there was a set arrangement which worked well.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, as an Edinburgh Member, is personally responsible because he was annoyed with one or two petty bourgeois cases in Edinburgh. Because the people involved were furious he pledged that the Government would introduce legislation and the parliamentary timetable had to be adjusted.
The Under-Secretary said that he would prefer to be discussing other matters. We have to discuss this matter only because the Government introduced the scheme. We should prefer to spend the time discussing other important Scottish education issues, such as expenditure cuts and how local education authorities and ordinary schools are suffering. Those are the matters that we should like to talk about, but instead the education authorities have to produce—if hon. Members have read the regulations—thousands of brochures about school uniforms, transport and a whole range of matters that 99 per cent. of parents know anyway. It all involves more expense. If the Conservatives have their way and more pupils have the opportunity of choosing a school—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and many of his colleagues in Edinburgh go out of their way to agitate, encourage and provoke parents—

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): To make their own choice.

Mr. Foulkes: No, into being dissatisfied with one area. They incite dissatisfaction among parents, and go out of their way to undermine schools in parts of Edinburgh. We see the snobbery emerging from the Edinburgh bourgeoisie. I know that the Minister is annoyed. He wanted to go home and watch television, but it is his responsibility to deal with this matter.
As hon. Members said in the last debate, there is too much rubber stamping of Bills by the House. The House is overburdened with all kinds of private and public legislation, and some good matters raised by my hon. Friends are never properly considered, particularly those relating to Scotland.

Mr. McQuarrie: What about an Assembly?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East makes a good point. If we had a Scottish Assembly those matters would be dealt with properly and in detail at a sensible time and place in Scotland.
One of the difficulties in dealing with these matters in Westminster is that other hon. Members may not have been able to make arrangements to be here, because of the crazy way in which the House operates its business. Halfway through a debate the other night we had to have an English Secretary of State moving an amendment that was replied to by an English spokesman which dealt with a Scottish matter, relating to the legal position as a result of the Plessey judgment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) was here. There was no Scottish Minister or Law Officer to explain the legal position. Scottish legislation is either put through as part of English legislation—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister talks nonsense. He knows that it is put through as United Kingdom legislation, and when it is implemented the Government find out that it is inappropriate for Scotland. They then have to change the position. It may be run through as a codicil to an England and Wales Bill or it may be dealt with a year or two later.
If the people of Scotland had not been duped by Lord Home of the Hirsel into believing that the Tories would provide a reasonable alternative to devolution, we would have a Scottish Assembly and matters would be dealt with properly in Scotland.
The third point I want to make on the regulations is about appeals—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It is the fourth point.

Mr. Foulkes: All right—it is the fourth. The Minister clearly had a good level of education. No doubt he passed O-level arithmetic. He is, of course, an accountant, and we are all aware of the skills of such people.
My fourth point relates to the appeals procedure and the inappropriateness of such appeals being heard by sheriffs. In the old Lothian region education committee. I had experience of an appeal that was dealt with by a sheriff under the old procedure. Therefore, this is not something new. Sheriffs are now involved more, but they were also involved under the previous arrangements. It is entirely inappropriate that they should be involved. That view is supported by the case of Isobel Poole and many others.
I have often been accused of being in great danger of getting into trouble with the Scottish legal fraternity. Part of our job is to question the decisions of judges and sheriffs. We must look at the way they interpret the law to see whether it needs to be changed as a result. It is difficult to understand why some sheriffs reach the decisions they do.

Mr. O'Neill: In fairness, I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that in Scotland it is an open secret that when the legislation was being considered, the sheriffs—I do not know whether they belong to a trade union, but they are backed by a strong trade union—were most reluctant to get involved because they saw the mess that had been made of the decision to which my hon. Friend referred. What we have seen since then suggests that they would be better out of it.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that information of which I was not aware—[Interruption.] I always admit my ignorance. I wish the Minister would do the same, but that would keep him busy.
The sheriffs must realise their limitations. When they get together, it is like a meeting of the former pupils of Edinburgh Academy or some other fee-paying institution within the Scottish education system.
Even sheriffs who received a decent education can still get it wrong. One case concerned the sheriff of Kilmarnock, Mr. David Smith, whose judgment was appalling. I choose my words carefully. He said that in determining the maximum teaching capacity of a school, account should be taken not only of the properly equipped classroom but of other possible spaces such as cloakrooms and assembly halls. We shall no doubt reach the stage where they will take account of the toilets as possible teaching areas.
The judgment in that case was absolutely ridiculous and made a mockery of the system. We had reservations about the matter when we were discussing it, and were unhappy about the maximum capacity of a school. However, we understood that any sensible person interpreting it would take account of the usable space for operating a proper school—not packing the children into every nook and cranny. What worries us about the sheriffs is that they do not understand the system. In my opinion, we do not need all this panoply, but if we have to have it, the sheriffs should not be the final arbiters of matters such as the maximum capacity of schools.
I could go on at length, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard me do so on many occasions, and you are always the most indulgent of the Deputy Speakers. However, I know that others of my colleagues wish to speak, and I want to give the Minister an opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should not interrupt the hon. Member to encourage him, but he can go on for only as long as he is in order.

Mr. Foulkes: There was one matter that I wanted to raise, and it was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). It refers to what I said earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East about circumstances before and after the legislation to which these regulations apply. In Strathclyde, the year before the legislation, there were 4,153 requests for transfers to schools other than the district schools. Now there are 4,658, so there has been no dramatic upsurge. The requests were dealt with under the old regulations adequately and sympathetically by the schools council in each case in the Strathclyde region. Strathclyde is a relatively good example. Even the Minister did not criticise the way it operated before. It shows that there was no need for any legislation. All the panoply now of the extra booklets is completely unnecessary.
We have spent some time this evening discussing these two regulations. As they have been brought before us, we have rightly taken the time of the House to give them proper consideration. As I said earlier, all matters related to Scottish education should be dealt with by a Scottish Assembly, but as long as they are dealt with here, we should give them proper and detailed scrutiny and consideration. However, whether the matter is dealt with here at Westminster or, more properly, by a Scottish Assembly, there are far more important problems in

Scottish education than these. These regulations, particularly the one dealing with school and placing information, are the result of a peccadillo by the Minister and his Edinburgh colleagues—a promise that they made to one or two aggrieved parents. It is ridiculous that the time of this House is spent in discussing matters which are totally irrelevant to 99 · 9 per cent. of the people in Scottish schools, when there are many more important issues that we should be tackling.

Mr. Bill Walker: I find it interesting, having listened carefully to what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) had to say and the encouragement that he received from his hon. Friends, that on the Labour Benches we have the old boys from the public schools and on the Conservative Benches we have the old boys from the State schools.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I am an old boy, probably the oldest in the House, but I went to what I call a public school. I went to a school administered by Glasgow corporation.

Mr. Walker: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I expected it because I knew that he was the only Scottish Member on the Labour Benches who had attended and completed his education at a State school.

Mr. Maxton: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I attended a State school from the age of five to 18.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman can explain to his colleagues why he subsequently taught at a fee-paying school when he is so opposed to all that is involved in fee-paying schools.
It seems to me, as it must to the people of Scotland, rather odd that we are discussing parents' choice—giving parents, as of right in law, the choice to say that they want their children to go to another school and, provided that that school can accept them, the children, as of right, can go there.
The regulations say that the schools must present evidence to the public of what they have done with public money spent on the education of the children. That is measured in examination results and is shown in the other activities that take place in the schools and which appear on reports. That is normal.
The Tayside region has one of the finest education setups in Scotland. I am delighted to represent part of that area because it is such a good education authority. The exam results are good and many parents select the schools to which they wish their children to go in order to get what they are looking for from education and that often involves the travelling of substantial distances because, as anyone who knows my constituency will know, it covers a large geographical area.

Mr. O'Neill: Mr. O'Neill rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
I choose my words carefully. What parents are looking for for their children is often determined by factors such as a school's religious base, the availability of specialist opportunities in music, drama or some other area that the parents feel is important to their children. They can now do that as of right under the regulations.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) wished to intervene earlier but he seems to have lost his interest.

Mr. O'Neill: It is rarely that my good manners are held against me. I was trying to take up the hon. Gentleman on what determined a good examination record. The truth is that until the regulations take effect there will be no obligation on a Scottish local authority to produce that evidence. Therefore, for him to say that his local authority is better or worse than any other is nonsense because he has no objective evidence on which to make comparisons. There is no evidence to suggest that any judgments can be made about what are good or bad exam results. Until the regulations have been enacted by the local authority there will be no basis for comparisons.

Mr. Walker: That rather lengthy intervention has done more for my case than the hon. Gentleman intended. For a long time it has been possible in Scotland to obtain and evaluate examination results. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire may shake his head, but I have investigated the examination results of different establishments and compared them and therefore a judgment can be made. The very fact that the evidence has been available on Tayside shows what a good authority it is. That is the only point that I sought to make. The majority of my constituents would want the choice.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to agree with the regulations and to conclude on that point.

Mr. John Home Robertson: At one point the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) implied that I had a somewhat eccentric educational background. Of course, he is quite right, because my parents took advantage of a rather extreme form of parental choice and sent me to school in England at the age of seven. Indeed, I had the same educational problems as those that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) manifest. Perhaps it shows—I do not know.
The hon. Gentleman's point was interesting and perhaps proved the age-old adage that the grass is always greener on the other side. Those Opposition Members who have glimpsed the horrors of a privileged education wish to discourage it, whereas Conservative Members appear to want to condemn their children to it. As a parent of two young children who are nowhere near school age, I am interested in parental choice. My children live in the catchment area of a small rural primary school that is threatened with closure, not because of a lack of resident children in the area, but because a high proportion of people have taken advantage of the type of provisions outlined in the regulations and have sent their children to other primary schools, including schools on the English side of the border. That is a curious state of affairs.

Mr. Maxton: I think that the Minister did not hear that point about primary school children crossing the frontier into England. Perhaps my hon. Friend would repeat it to ensure that the Minister replies, because I did not think that it was allowed under this legislation.

Mr. Home Robertson: I assure my hon. Friend that that is happening and that the Borders regional council is paying Northumberland county council for placing children in schools on the English side of the border. That is having a harmful effect on those in primary schools in

the areas affected by that drain. Those taking advantage of it are those who can afford to pay the cost of transporting their children. That cost could be substantial. People must either have their own cars or be able to afford taxis or public transport—always assuming that adequate public transport exists, which in many rural areas it does not. We are therefore talking about an extremely—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It really is awful. All those privileged people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order.

Mr. Home Robertson: I hope that the Minister will contain himself. I do not know whether he has had a good meal—perhaps he has had something to drink—but he is certainly making a lot of noise, and the way in which he is performing brings no credit to his office. Of course, we have become used to such antics from Conservative Members because they are not answerable to the majority of people in Scotland, so they feel that they can disport themselves in that fashion.
I have made what I regard as a serious point and I hope that the Minister will regard it as such. The regulations may have a genuinely detrimental effect on local schools, particularly in rural areas. The way in which the regulations operate discriminates against people who do not have their own transport and cannot afford to take advantage of public transport if it exists.
I am sorry that hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom are getting restless. It is a great pity that we have to handle specifically Scottish regulations in this Parliament. I see the hon. Member for Devon, West (S ir P. Mills) nodding. should perhaps explain that this is not only an English Parliament. It is a Scottish Parliament and an English Parliament rolled into one. It is a bottleneck through which legislation for both nations must pass. It is a pity that the hon. Members for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and Devon, West, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and others are having to spend all this time here, but we have to suffer the other side of the coin, so it is only fair that on this occasion they should have to face the music.

Mr. David Myles: I am puzzling over what the hon. Gentleman meant when he made his serious point. He seemed to be sayirg that all schools were more or less equal. He then went on to say that there was discrimination because some people could not go to one school rather than another. How can that be discrimination if all schools are more or less equal?

Mr. Home Robertson: I always have to give way to my pair, as I might suffer for it if I did not. In fact, I was not talking about discrimination between schools—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) will turn up his hearing aid, he may hear me this time. I was talking about discrimination between parents who can take advantage of the scheme because they have their own transport or can afford to pay for public transport, if it exists, and those who are not in a position to take advantage of the scheme.
It seems to me that the Government brought in this legislation in the first place entirely to suit their own prejudices against the previous administration of Lothian regional council. It is pretty irrelevant in most areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes)


explained very well—and he has wide experience of these matters as a former chairman of the Lothian region education committee.
I am profoundly unhappy about a wide range of factors in the regulations, including the publication of so-called basic information—namely, examination results—and the involvement of sheriffs, to which reference has already been made. The entire scheme and the regulations now before us are sheer gimmickry. We all want to see the extension of genuine parental choice, but this scheme denies more privileges than it creates. In the present circumstances, it is an unjustifiable misuse of scarce public funds.
I hope that the Minister will answer the numerous points that have been made. If he does, it will be out of character, but hope springs eternal. I hope that the House will reject the regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Albert McQuarrie.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful to have this opportunity to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman already spoken during the debate?

Mr. McQuarrie: No, Sir. I made an intervention earlier. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not consider my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) to be a speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it was an intervention, it was a long one. Is the hon. Gentleman about to make another intervention or a speech?

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having tolerated my long intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, but I think it was justifiable. I shall limit my remarks now in order to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland an opportunity to reply to the many ridiculous Opposition comments.
The hon. Members for South Ayrshire and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) preached about the Scottish Assembly and all its advantages. However, I have not heard while I have been in the Chamber—I have been here for the whole of the debate—any mention of the supplementary provisions set out in article 13, paragraph 3 of the regulations, referring to the Gaelic language. If Opposition Members are so interested in Scottish affairs they should have had some consideration for parents who wish to transfer their children from a school which does not have the Gaelic language to a school in a Gaelic-speaking area. It is incredible that after all the talk from the Opposition Benches about parental control, they had nothing to say about the point raised by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), when he was trying to get the Gaelic language spoken in schools in Scotland. If Opposition Members are so determined to have zoning in schools it would have benefited them to comment on that aspect because there have been widespread discussions in Scotland about Gaelic-speaking areas. I take a particular interest in that subject because I believe that opportunities should be given—

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) had an opportunity to speak. I must be brief in order to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the opportunity to reply.
It ill becomes the Opposition—

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: It ill becomes the Opposition to preach that this statutory instrument operates against parental choice. The supplementary provisions should have been taken on board by the Opposition if they wished to criticise the Bill. When the regulations are agreed, I am sure that many areas will take advantage of Article 13(3).

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is a little worried that I shall carry out my threat to vote on the meat staining issue.
To set the record straight, all my hon. Friends from Scotland present in the Chamber tonight voted for the measure when it was introduced by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made sure that Gaelic was not taught in Scottish schools. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) should address his questions to him.

Mr. McQuarrie: It would be interesting to read the record to see how many Labour Members were present when the measure was talked out.

Mr. Bill Walker: I spoke against the measure. I did not want the whole of my constituency designated as a Gaelic-speaking area. Certain schools did not wish to teach Gaelic and certain parents did not wish it. But I have actively encouraged the schools that wished to teach Gaelic—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must repeat that the route being followed is the wrong one for this statutory instrument.

Mr. McQuarrie: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not doubt your knowledge of Scotland but you are not a Scot. If you have read the debates that the right hon. Member for Western Isles raised, you will appreciate the strong feeling of parents on the question of choosing Gaelic or non-Gaelic speaking schools.
The instrument will give individual parents a choice. That is an important reason why it should be approved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) for pointing out, among other things, how important the question of choice is to families. If there is a school within reasonable travelling distance that teaches Gaelic they may wish their child to be taught there, and the reverse might be true. A family next door to a school that teaches Gaelic may not wish their child to be taught there. My hon. Friend's point reveals the benefits of the instrument.
You have already been complimented for your patience in putting up yet again with a Scottish debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the last of the Session. We must treat with humour some of the Opposition's comments. If one took seriously every word uttered by the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home


Robertson) when they say that they or the local education authority know better than the parents, it would be an exceedingly sad day for our democratic institutions.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. Fletcher: We feel strongly about the statutory instrument and are happy to accept the challenge to a debate.

Mr. Foulkes: Mr. Foulkes rose—

Mr. Fletcher: The information regulations are an essential part of the package of what has become known as the parents' charter. As far as is practicable, parents should be able to choose the school that they wish their child to attend.

Mr. Maxton: No one is arguing about that.

Mr. Fletcher: I am glad we agree about that, but that is not apparent from any of the Opposition's actions.
There is nothing theoretical about the parents' charter and parental choice in education. It is not enough to say that we shall give parents the right to choose the school that their children should attend. That must be backed up with the best of information for parents, from which they can make that choice. For that underlying and important reason the statutory instrument has been brought before the House.
Apart from the fact that perhaps a minority of parents will want to go to the trouble of finding out what other schools in their area may have to offer, there is a wider aspect to parental choice that is of greater importance.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is living in another world.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his ears instead of his mouth for a few moments.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make that remark when he shouted, laughed and barracked all the way through speeches made by Opposition Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that it was a Scottish phrase. I did not fully understand it.

Mr. Fletcher: I was suggesting that there was a wider aspect with regard to parental choice. Most parents would probably be content to send their children to the local neighbourhood school. It would be sad if that were otherwise. However, that fact does not remove one iota of importance from the document because it is just as important to give information about the local school to parents who, in all likelihood, wish to send their children there, as it is to give information about a wider area to parents who may, for whatever individual family reasons, wish to take advantage of the provision whereby they might send their children not to the local school but elsewhere.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I shall not give way.
It is important that parents, whatever decision they make about a school, should be provided with as much information as possible about the local schools and other schools in the area so that they can make an intelligent and informed choice about their children's education.
Furthermore, it is important, as we wish more parents to become involved in decisions about their children's education, that those parents should be involved in the

primary choice of a school. That is why we are anxious that information should be distributed in a proper and organised form to parents so that they can make the choice between the local school and another school in the area.
Many schools already publish information. Hon. Members have referred to that. There is nothing in the regulations that will stop the good practice in which many schools indulge at present. We are making it perfectly clear that schools and education authorities will be obliged to provide parents with information so that they can make their choice.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) did not seem to disagree in principle with the Government's objectives although, like some other Opposition Members, he objected to the inclusion of examination results. If Opposition Members believe that parents should have information about schools' social activities, sporting activities and syllabuses, how c an they deny parents some information about academic progress and examination results achieved by the schools in be area? There is no suggestion that that should be done in a discriminatory fashion. However, that information can show the number of children who have been entered for O-grades and highers in Scotland, and the number of passes that have been achieved.
What could be more straightforward than that? The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire thought that we were merely sticking to the Scottish examinations board on that part of the information. Guidance circular 10/80 says that it might be desired to publish the results of students taking other examinations. Schools have discretion to decide how best—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is now 10 o'clock precisely and we have been listening to this ministerial drivel for too long, I should like to move formally that my Scottish Parliament Bill be read a Second time. We are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is by no stretch of the imagination a point of order.

Mr. Fletcher: As I was saying, schools are free to use other forms of examination, the results of which they may print in their prospectuses.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has not said why it is not referred to in the regulations. If examination results are as important as he maintains, adequate provision ought to have been made to cover all the examinations for which Scottish students are being presented. The SED fell down on this matter. The Minister is making a rather unfortunate and inept job of protecting either himself or his officials. Someone somewhere did not take account of the fact that examinations other than SCE examinations are presented for in Scottish schools.

Mr. Fletcher: I repeat, that matter was covered in a guidance circular. That was well understood by the schools, if not by the hon. Gentleman. It is for that perfectly sensible reason that we have included examination results in the information that is to be made available to parents.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. Fletcher: No, I shall not give way. It is important to give the House some idea of the number of parents who have exercised their right of choice in this first year of the regulations.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister is frightened.

Mr. Fletcher: I give the hon. Member for Cathcart the same advice that I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayshire. He speaks and intervenes regularly. I do not complain about that. Just occasionally, he should listen with his ears rather than with his tongue.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is not answering.

Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to advise Opposition Members, who make such an issue about giving parents information, about how parents have responded to the freedom of choice and movement that they did not previously have to the same extent. Since the regulations were introduced this year there have been more than 10,000 applications by parents to choose a school other than a local neighbourhood one.

Mr. Foulkes: How does that compare with previous years?

Mr. Fletcher: More than 10,000 is a significant figure. That is not the end of it as the figure is based on returns by the education authorities to the Scottish Office.
What is even more significant and what may double that figure or make it even greater is the fact that many local authorities, acting in the spirit of the legislation, are allowing parents to take their children to a school and to be admitted without going through the procedure that is laid down in legislation. No statistical returns are available for that group. I am not worried about that. It means that the spirit of the legislation is being implemented by local authorities in a way that strikes right to the heart of its purpose. Informal admission on request is sensible, even if it defeats the statisticians' desire to provide the House with information about the total number of applications for a change of school. I find that heartening and encouraging. I hope that Opposition Members feel the same. It cannot be said that the numbers I have given represent a tiny minority. We know about 10,000, and that may have been doubled or more than doubled by informal requests—

Mr. Foulkes: Mr. Foulkes rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I shall not give way until I have provided the hon. Gentleman with some information. The total number of transfers this year is 140,000. There have been 10,000, 20,000 or more informal requests for school transfers. That is a significant number. We have little information about previous years. We knew that complaints had been made, but we did not know much about the successful transfers.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that the information required would embarrass the bad schools—to use his simple language—at the expense of the so-called good

schools. That is a terrible attitude for any hon. Member to take when considering parental choice. His alternative suggestion was that parents should be held back from making a choice, and that they should be embarrassed about their children's education rather than the local administration. How better can we test the quality of schools than to give people the freedom of choice over which school their children should attend? If that criterion is applied, at least we know that the school suits the parents.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is always in a hurry to ask more questions before his points have been answered, referred to a decision in the sheriff court in Kilmarnock. He raised an interesting matter, to which I am happy to refer. Requests for places in a popular school were refused by the education authority on the grounds that there would have to be significant expenditure on accommodation. However, when arguing the case it cut the ground from under its feet by saying that if the pupils were admitted it would not spend anything, but would continue with the existing arrangements such as using the school hall stage as a teaching area. With that evidence, I contend that the sheriff had no alternative but to decide that if that were the present practice, and if no significant expenditure would arise, the school should admit the child. I do not wish to debate the merits of the case, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the fact that the schools were already using areas for teaching that were not proper classrooms suggests that the sheriff had little choice but to say, "Continue as you are."

Mr. Foulkes: I recall the Minister arguing in Edinburgh that the local authority should take advantage of falling rolls to stop using unsatisfactory accommodation such as cloakrooms and hall stages. The trouble with the current legislation is that schools cannot do that because pupils arriving from other areas keep the schools overcrowded. The body best equipped to make such decisions is the education committee, or even the Secretary of State, but sheriffs have no knowledge or inside information to allow them to make such decisions.

Mr. Fletcher: In all the circumstances of this case, which I described in some detail, the sheriff's conclusion was logical. Under the previous Lothian region administration, few people who wished to exercise their choice of school in Edinburgh had much confidence in the justice of the decisions made by the transfer committee.
The Conservative Party believes that parents must have the maximum possible choice in the education of their children. I hope that that is accepted. Under the regulations parents will be provided with the maximum information upon which to make that choice. Arguments against that are absurd and hollow and contradict the suggestion that Labour Members agree in principle that, under a Labour Government, individuals would have a say in their own affairs.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but, after listening to that non-reply by the sub-Minister, I believe that someone should point out to him that yet again he has shown that he knows almost nothing about Scottish schools, for which he is supposed to bear ministerial responsibility.
No Labour Member would argue against the principles of parental or pupil choice or the freedom of information. I have played some part in the campaign within Scotland and elsewhere for a freedom of information Act. It is a pity that the Government and the Minister did not back up their fine words with better legislation for freedom of information and for parental, pupil and teacher rights of access to information. Instead they brought forward the regulations, most of which are a waste of paper. Again, we must wonder about the priorities of this corrupt Parliament in debating the matter at the fag end of the parliamentary Session. It seems that the Minister is applying double standards. Civil servants and Ministers must have nothing else to do—they are ministering over the worst cuts in the history of Scottish education—than to state in black and white that parents should get the name and address of the school which their children attend. They must think that the parents and children of Scotland are thick in the head if they need legislation to tell them to get the name and address of the school which their children attend, or the name and address of the head teacher. Why not go one stage further and tell parents in secondary legislation that they should get the name and address of the form teacher as well? It is ridiculous that these provisions should be set out in secondary legislation.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this an intervention or a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been present at the time, he would have heard me call the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to make a speech.

Mr. Canavan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of the hooligans on the Conservative Benches cannot appreciate a good speech when they hear one occasionally.
Paragraph 2(g) of schedule 1, under the heading "Basic information" refers to
arrangements for assessing pupils' progress and reporting this to parents".
This is another example of the Government's hypocrisy. When the Education (Scotland) Act 1981—the primary legislation—was passing through the House we tabled amendments in Committee which would have made it obligatory on the education authority or on the part of the Minister, or both, to give access to parents and to pupils to the records that are kept in schools. I hear complaints from some parents and pupils who are concerned, especially in these days of mass unemployment which has been created by the Minister and the other rogues who are included in the Government, who have deliberately created mass unemployment in Scotland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying in his language. He should not refer to Ministers as rogues.

Mr. Foulkes: Even if they are?

Mr. Canavan: The Minister has certainly been guilty of rogue misbehaviour in the way in which he has

deliberately created mass unemployment and deprived young people in Scotland of the opportunity to receive good training and education as well as the opportunity to work when their statutory period of education is finished.
There is the fear in some pupils' minds, and in their parents' minds, too, that there might be something in the school records—it may have been put in them with good intentions but could result in putting a black mark against the pupil—that could be carried on after the pupil has left school and could interfere with his or her employment opportunities in later life. That is not something which should be disregarded. If there is any case for statutory access to information, access to school records is essential so that if mistakes have been made they can be corrected. Even if the initial information was correct, there should be the opportunity for access. There may have been a change for the better in the pupil's conduct which makes him or her potentially a better citizen or a better employee.
Why should young people have the fear in their minds that because of some petty misdemeanour committed in adolescence their record may be held against them and may inhibit their employment opportunities? Access to school records should have been included in the schedule.
There should also be statutory access to a teacher's record by the individual teacher.
One well documented case is that of a teacher in my constituency who for years applied unsuccessfully for promotion. For years he was never even short-listed for promotion. He wondered why he was not interviewed or even considered. He discovered that information on an education authority file alleged that he had been involved in a political demonstration in Glasgow, was arrested and detained for the weekend and was unable to fulfil his teaching duties on the Monday morning. That false information came to light almost by accident and interfered with his employment and career prospects.
If the Government were not so hypocritical but were genuine about access to information, they would legislate so that individual parents, pupils and teachers had access to such information about themselves. They should have the right to see in black and white what Big Brother has against them. The Government do not believe in that. We are approaching 1984 and the Government are behaving like Big Brother. They are Stalinist in their dictatorship of education in Scotland without having a mandate from the people of Scotland.
The regulations say that access to information should apply to
school policy on discipline, school rules; enforcement of attendance".
The double standards and hypocrisy of the Government are incredible, even to those of us who have witnessed them in the past three-and-a-half years on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
That applies especially to the Under-Secretary, whose credibility is non-existent. He of all people is introducing secondary legislation which makes it compulsory for education authorities or schools to provide information on school policy and discipline, although he voted against our amendments to the Bill. We tabled amendments to give parents the right of access to information on a school's attitude to corporal punishment. We tabled amendments to give information on the frequency of corporal punishment.
For example, some schools might try to phase out corporal punishment. Some enlightened education


authorities such as Strathclyde and Lothian have taken the initiative. The Minister was afraid to take that initiative to get rid of corporal punishment. The Minister shakes his head, but he voted in Committee against an amendment to ban corporal punishment for handicapped children. He voted in favour of corporal punishment for handicapped children. That proves how twisted he is. He is now laughing. The Minister may joke about it. He probably thinks that meting out punishment to disabled children is a big laugh.
Despite the facade of the statutory instrument, parents should be reminded that the Minister voted against our amendment to give parents access to information and the right to say to the education authority that they do not want their child to be subjected to corporal punishment.
The Minister proclaims the importance of parental choice and right, but he will not even fulfil the wishes of the European Court of Human Rights despite the fact that he is a member of a Government who are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and despite the European Court's finding on the legal rights of parents as to whether their children should be subjected to the barbaric practice of corporal punishment. The Minister is not willing to give parents that right, although he puts himself forward as the great champion of parental rights. He is not fit to hold office, and he should resign.
Paragraph 2(q) of schedule 1 shows the Tory Party's obsession with examination results. They should put their own examination results on the table to let us see whether they are of sufficient educational calibre to be Ministers in charge of Scottish or any education. If I were giving examination marks for their abilities as Ministers, they would be well below the E category of O-level for ministerial capability. I should not even pass them under the old 11-plus system. They are a discredit to their position when they put forward examination results as the main item for assessing a school's educational value and a child's educational attainment.
The Opposition have nothing against information. We have consistently argued in favour of more information being given to parents about the assessment of their children and of the range of school activities. To single out examinations and say:
The number of pupils from the school who attain each band of award in examinations conducted by the Scottish Examination Board, shown separately for each subject and for each stage of secondary education, in the most recent school year for which those numbers are available to the school.
must be given is incredible. It is like putting a statutory obligation on the school to list its place in the football league, rugby league or chess competition. Why should one aspect of education be singled out for such treatment?
While on the matter of sport, there are far too many schools in Scotland that do not give pupils the right to decide what sport they would like to play. There are far too many schools particularly in the part of Scotland that the Minister misrepresents who virtually forbid children from playing one of the most popular ball games in Scotland—Association Football—and force them to play Rugby Union. I have nothing against Rugby Union, but if we believe in pupil and parental choice and breadth of curriculum that choice should be available in schools.
If the Government see fit to introduce legislation about examinations, it would be logical to introduce legislation for pupil choice in the whole curriculum.
During the passage of the Bill the Minister and his minions voted against an amendment that would have given senior school pupils, and the parents of those pupils not mature enough to make up their own minds, the right to opt for a particular course or subject. But throughout Committee the Minister voted against any meaningful freedom of choice for parents or pupils. That is why these regulations are a waste of Government paper and public expenditure.
I can honestly say that hardly any of my constituents see this as an education priority in the Central region of Scotland—[Interruption.] The Minister will at least give me credit for representing my constituents. I think that I increased my majority by slightly more than he did at the last general election. I also believe that I speak with a greater mandate from the constituents of West Stirlingshire than the mandate that the Minister received from the constituents of Edinburgh, North.
Although this rubbish is almost completely irrelevant to the people in my area—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. Canavan: I do know. Unlike some Conservative Members, my children attend local education authority schools. I visit as many of the schools in my constituency as I can, and I think that I know more about what is going on than the Minister.
Although this rubbish might be irrelevant to my constituents, it could have a detrimental effect in certain urban areas. Some parents who would otherwise be happy for their children to attend local education authority schools will, because of legislation such as this, now might be tempted to say "There might be a better school elsewhere, and given that Parliament is debating this nonsense I should perhaps look around for another school". The danger is that pupils might be taken away from the local school in some urban areas, and the local school could thereby be impoverished. That is the genuine fear of some hon. Members from urban areas.
Here we are at the fag end of one of the worst parliamentary Sessions in the history of this Parliament. It has proven yet again that the Minister and the majority of Members of this Parliament are absolutely out of touch with Scottish education, and insensitive to the needs of Scottish children and the majority of Scottish parents.
Therefore, for the fourth time today, I formally move, That the Scottish Parliament Bill be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neill: Mr. O'Neill rose—

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to describe this Parliament as a corrupt Parliament?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member do that, but if he did so it certainly would not be in order. Did the hon. Member do that? If he did, I must ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Canavan: We shall have to check it in Hansard tomorrow.

Question put and negatived.

Meat (Sterilisation and Staining)

Mr. Mark Hughes: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1018), dated 22nd July 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th July, be annulled.
My joy at arriving at this point is almost unalloyed. It appears that we now have regulations which have received the unanimous support of the House, and I think it only fair to explain why this prayer was tabled. As will be seen from the dates, it was made on the last day before the House rose for the Summer Recess, and at that time a prayer had to be tabled before either I or my hon. Friends had the opportunity to study it in detail. Now that we have had that opportunity, apart from a few minor points, we welcome and endorse the regulations and delight at everything that the Minister is doing, and wish them great success.
None the less, given the timetabling of praying, we had no choice but to table a prayer to enable the interested bodies and this House to give information and evidence to the Opposition, the Government and every right hon. and hon. Member so that we might all be assured that these excellent proposals received the approbation of all. Had we not prayed, neither the pet food industry nor anyone else would have had the chance to register any opposition that they might have had after the regulations were laid.
However, I am happy to reassure the Minister and the House that no significant opposition has been registered to these proposals. Nevertheless, there are certain minor points on which I hope that the Minister will comment. First, as some of the questionable meat came from Scotland and/or Northern Ireland, why do the regulations apply only to England and Wales? Are there shortly to be analagous regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland? We hope so.
Secondly, can the Minister assure the House that the problem of non-laboratory—in the veterinary sense—access to specimens will be uninhibited? Can he further say whether non-veterinary and non-hospitals laboratories at school level which use materials from knackers' yards and so on for experimental purposes are covered by section 17?
Given that the regulations are consequential upon the excellent Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) I know that he would also welcome them. He has apologised to me for his absence, and through me to the House, but he hopes to be here at 11 o'clock.
The prayer is laid only to enable the Minister to explain in detail to the House what the regulations involve. I assure the House that we do not wish in any way to impede their progress but welcome them.

Sir Peter Mills: I welcome this important measure. The Opposition were right to pray against the regulations because there are one or two matters that need explaining. I and other hon. Members raised the problems many years ago and it is nice to see the fruition of those efforts. There are important issues at stake. The public need to be protected. In some quarters there has been serious abuse. Real safeguards are needed and the regulations help to provide them.
As a result of the regulations the consumer will have more confidence in purchasing meat products. We have all heard the stories of the kangaroo meat. That abuse did occur in parts of the country and I am pleased that the measures will help to stamp it out.
I must declare an interest, being not only a farmer but a shareholder in North Devon Meat Ltd. which has a large processing plant for animal by-products. That is a business of increasing importance. I wonder whether the House and consumers at large realise the importance of by-product and knackers' plants to the welfare of the community. They have an important role to play.
Vast quantities of meat unfit for human consumption come from dead animals and that must be processed. Such animals cannot simply be buried. It is an important industry, not only for pet foods, meat and bone fertiliser, but because some of the glands and other parts that are obtained from the carcases are important to the community's general welfare.
Article 17 deals with the removal of unfit meat to a zoological garden, menagerie, mink farm or maggot farm—that is interesting. Recently in North Devon Meat Ltd. as one of the skips was being tipped into the processing plant a remarkable thing happened. To the astonishment of the operators it was found that there were two dead lions in it. Was it right that they should have been processed? It certainly gave the workmen quite a shock.
Article 17(2) states that containers should be kept
closed and locked or sealed at all times except when necessary for the loading or unloading of the contents".
That is very important. There have been complaints, particularly in Okehampton in my constituency, that the smell is sometimes pretty grim when vast quantities of such material pass through the town to be treated. The containers should not only be closed and locked but sealed. Those who have travelled behind such container lorries know of the terrible smell. That point should he emphasised.
I also hope that measures such as article 16(1) w ill stop the kangaroo meat nonsense, Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the cosy of the regulations to the consumer will be. That might be of interest. Although everyone is in favour of hygiene in our slaughterhouses and better controls, someone has to pay for meat inspection charges and so on.
Finally, failure to comply with regulations carries a maximum penalty, on conviction, of a £100 fine, three months' imprisonment, or both. That is nothing like enough. Hon. Members should consider the price of a hind quarter of beef. There will be a great temptation to use a substandard meat and to make steaks from meat that is unfit for such use o: that comes from an animal other than a bullock. Therefore, £100 is peanuts to a dishonest person who is willing to risk getting away with it. The regulations are important and [ wish them well. It is right that the House should discuss them, particularly given past events. I hope that in the long run the consumer will be protected from the small minority who try to get away with such things.

Mr. Richard Page: I shall not delay the House for long on the eve of Prorogation, and I shall not raise many detailed points.
I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the regulations. If I were to be critical I would say that I wish


that they had been introduced earlier. Nevertheless I welcome them. I do not know why the Opposition have prayed against them. The reasons given by the Opposition have been extremely weak. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the respective points about Scotland and the level of the penalities to be applied. We have an opportunity to welcome the covert support from the EEC. It has helped to introduce regulations that will benefit every consumer.
I do not propose to discuss the individual horror stories that have appeared in the media and beguiled us. Some of them are a testimony to the strength of the human stomach, but even the stomach must be protected by law, and I hope that the regulations will do that. They cover some of the areas of concern. The worry about the different labelling techniques in the ports before the meat is sent elsewhere for sterilisation has been eliminated. The way in which the containers are closed and sealed is important, and we have heard about the smells and disagreeable odours that emanate from them. I am also glad that the various records on how unfit meat is dealt with will be subject to closer control and scrutiny.
I, too, wish to stress that a penalty of £100 is not a sufficient deterrent to a person wishing to recycle unfit meat for human consumption. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that firmly on board.
As had already been said, these regulations apply only to England and Wales. At this stage, Scotland is not covered. I know that the Scottish stomach is trained on haggis and porridge, but I wonder whether that is sufficient to enable it to consume unfit meat. Can my hon. Friend give us a date or a period within which equalisation of treatment will be introduced for the people of Scotland?
I return to my original point. Why have the Opposition prayed against these regulations? Of course, it is a glorious opportunity to talk about meat staining. Hon. Members on both sides could willingly do that for hours on end, and it is certainly an important subject. Nevertheless, all day today and throughout the past few days, Opposition Members have been moaning and groaning that they have had no opportunity to discuss matters of national importance and cases in which their constituents have been ground down by the Government's actions. Yet what do we have as the final item before we prorogue tomorrow? We have meat staining. Are the Opposition so bereft of worry about the Conservative Party that that is the best that they can manage? It is indeed clear that the Opposition are bereft of any ideas.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Page: No, I shall not give way. I am about to finish and other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing forward these regulations, and I look forward to their implementation on 1 November.

Mr. John Major: I wish briefly to emphasise a point that is of concern to me. As my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and

Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) have said, the penalties set out in article 26 seem very modest in view of the nature of the offence.
I am open to correction on this, but it seems to me also that, as the provision stands, although for the first offence the penalty may be a £100 fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, for a subsequent offence there is only a fine not exceeding £5 per day and no mention of imprisonment. I should therefore welcome clarification as to what will be the penalty for a second or subsequent offence.
Perhaps the Minister will also say whether she proposes to seek an updating of the penalties at an early stage. I assume that this statutory instrument is subsidiary legislation to the Food and Drugs Act and it may be possible to update the penalties by an amendment to that Act. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would advise the House on that point.

Mr. John Farr: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on the expedition with which they have moved. Some of us were lucky enough to be sponsors of the legislation relating to this very matter that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) succeeded in getting on to the statute book this year and I know that he would have wished to be here today to welcome the implementation of the promises made by the Government during the long debates on that legislation both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). It is a worthy and important subject. When the hon. Member for Tottenham introduced his Bill, I believe that he had an almost record postbag expressing public anxiety about the situation.
I welcome the Government's expedition and the fact that the regulations will be introduced on 1 November. I have a special interest. My borough council had great difficulty under the old regulations in pinning down several flagrant attempts by transgressors to make immense profits. It pursued the miscreants closely, but one difficulty was that the penalties under the old legislation were inadequate. I am glad to see that the system has been tightened up and that for the first time a term of imprisonment is to be provided. That will be a great deterrent.
My hon. Friend the Minister will agree that consumer protection must be the first priority. Although we have nearly reached Prorogation, I do not believe that it is too late to be talking about consumer interests. Unfit meat must be disposed of, and legislation must not be unnecessarily restrictive for legitimate operations. I am glad to see that after considerable consultation with the interested and responsible parties my hon. Friend has secured the interests of the large and growing pet food industry, which has a turnover of over £500 million per annum and supplies food for a large population of dogs, cats and other animals.
Local authorities have had difficulty in enforcing the old, outdated legislation. An alert and vigilant local authority can do much to stop the illegal trade, even with the present powers. With the new armoury, however, that important task will be made far easier. The measure introduces wider and stronger powers, which I hope local


authorities will use effectively. I hope that they will continue to place a high priority on preventing the illegal trade.
Conservatives are committed to cutting out red tape and keeping down paperwork. I hope that the paperwork will be kept to a minimum and that local authorities will interpret the regulations correctly and cut down on unnecessary paperwork by allowing regular movement of unfit meat under the standing authorisation procedure permitted in the regulations. The Government have been pragmatic in exempting low value slaughterhouse waste from the movement permit system.
I welcome the regulations. I am glad that they concentrate on those areas where action was badly needed and where my hon. Friend promised that it would be taken at an early date.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was right to differ from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). The regulations and the legislation that preceded them were desired across the House. All environmental health officers or directors of environmental health, especially Neil Morton in Rotherham, were extremely anxious that the House should make the arrangements. I intervene briefly to express my support for the regulations and to echo the comments that have been made, suggesting that a fine of £100 is insufficient.
I received a letter from the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association. The Minister may have seen the letter, as several hon. Members received it. The second concern of pet food manufacturers was that although
the specified stain disappears on heat processing, the toxicology of the breakdown products is not fully understood.
If the fine is to be only £100, people might wish to subject the specified stain to heat treatment to make a great deal of money. We cannot allow the failure to understand the toxicology of the breakdown to persist. Will the Minister agree to reconsider as early as possible the amount of the fine and ensure that the Ministry's scientists properly understand and investigate the toxicology of the breakdown products so that the stain does not cause a disadvantage to the community if and when it is applied?

Mr. Tony Speller: I shall express some brief thoughts, following my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). It is a beautiful part of the country that produces some of the best meat in the world. However, some of the offal and remains can be much less pleasant in their handling and transit. I support everything that my hon. Friend said. We need to have sealed containers so that our tourists' nostrils are not offended as the tourists enjoy the beauties of the countryside.
However, there is a problem. As I am involved in the retail trade, I am aware that every shopkeeper in the world and everyone who deals with products of the knackers' yard or the back end of the butchers' world breaks the law every time he opens up the business. People may comment on the paucity of the fine, but many of the smaller slaughterhouses have a hard job staying in business at all these days. A fine of £100 once, twice or thrice may be enough to push them out of business.
I sometimes wonder whether we take a little too much care in crossing "t"s and dotting "i"s, particularly in the

regulations. I am aware that experts in the legal profession understand every word. I doubt whether the man who is concerned with implementing the regulations understands them. Ignorance AS no excuse, but, while I support in every way the need for the regulations, it would be good if they were issued in a summary form, so that the poor man at the end of the line who has to act each day within the law or who may suffer this small, but significant penalty, will be able to find hits way around the regulations.
The points made about the future of the pet food industry have not been covered as much as they could be. There is no doubt that many people pay sums for pet food that are in excess of what they would pay for human food.
I welcome the regulations. I am glad that the Opposition have provided us with the chance to speak on them. In adding my small piece, I ask that we should not make them so difficult that the poor chap who has a dirty and messy job inadvertently finds that he is at odds with the law.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I thank the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) for the kind words he used in his opening remarks. I shall take this opportunity to explain the Government's view and to answer the points that have been made by Opposition Members and my hon. Friends.
I shall remind the House of the origins of the regulations that we are considering tonight. The purpose of the regulations is, of course, to impose strict and effective controls on the disposal of meat that is unfit for human consumption. For many years that subject has been dealt with under the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations 1969. It was only relatively recently that it became apparent that serious problems were arising in the enforcement of the 1969 regulations and cases came to light with which we are familiar where unfit meat was being diverted illegally into the human consumption market. The Government took a serious view of these events, as did the local authorities who were charged with the enforcement of the regulations. Therefore, in February 1981 we issued a consultative letter asking for views from many interested organisations on how the legislation had been working.
In the light of the comments that we received, it was decided that it was necessary to bring the old regulations up to date and to introduce wider and stricter controls on the unfit meat trade. Specific ideas for amending the regulations were accordingly issued in October 1981 and we received many and diverse comments on the approach that we were proposing to adopt.
A final consultation letter was issued in May of this year with our detailed proposals for amending the regulations. As I explained to the House in the debate on the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill on 23 April, we intended to lay the new regulations before Parliament before the Summer Recess. That objective was achieved although only just. I know that the hon. Member for Durham will understand that that was our firm intention. It was difficult to do it in time. That is why it was only just fitted in and he was put in some difficulty.
I am aware that the Government have been criticised for not acting more quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) said that it was good and asked why we had not done something before.
Criticism, however, is not justified. It was essential, first, to establish the precise nature and extent of the problem. When it had become clear that local authorities were having serious difficulty dealing with the illegal trade that was thought to be widespread, we decided that amendments to the regulations should be made.
The preparation of the amendments inevitably took a considerable time, first because many organisations have an interest in the matter and had to be consulted; and, secondly, because the disparity in the comments that we received was such that it would clearly be difficult to produce new regulations that would be acceptable to all concerned.
The problem of how to control the trade in unfit meat is complex in view of the numerous different uses to which unfit meat may be put. We intended to ensure that the new regulations recognised the legitimate interests of those who safely and legally dispose of unfit meat, while making it as difficult as possible for abuses to occur.
It is, of course, unavoidable that in a slaughterhouse, for example, considerable quantities of waste material are produced. It is essential that proper arrangements exist to allow its safe disposal. We also had to consider the interests of the operators of knackers yards who perform a valuable service to the agriculture industry by disposing of casualty animals. Pet food manufacturers form a valuable and efficient industry and have a legitimate interest in obtaining supplies of meat of a kind not commonly used for human consumption.
We had to ensure, therefore, that the interests of those and other organisations would not be seriously prejudiced by the new system of controls that we were proposing to introduce. Having made this point, however, I must make it clear that our first priority was to ensure that the new controls would be sufficiently strong to provide an effective weapon against further illegal operations and to ensure that consumers could have full confidence in the quality of the meat that they purchase.
I now wish to comment on the regulations themselves. I am conscious of the fact that the regulations are very complex and need to be studied with some care in order to understand their full effect. That is, however, largely a reflection of the complexity of the subject to which I have already referred, and on careful study I believe that the logic of the approach that has been adopted becomes clear. I am also aware, and this view has been reflected in some of the comments, that some people consider that there is an inadequacy in the penalties. It is fair to say, however, that the regulations are generally accepted by all the main organisations concerned as an acceptable solution to the problems. The regulations will provide a sound basis for controlling the trade in unfit meat. Their success depends to a large extent on their being strictly applied by the enforcement authorities. It will also be necessary for companies in the meat trade to continue to exercise very careful vigilance over the quality of the meat that they purchase.
At an early stage of their consideration of the matter, the Government accepted that a fundamental element in the new regulations should be the introduction of a requirement to stain certain types of unfit meat. We accepted that staining is an unpleasant procedure, that it adds to the costs and that it is not easy to arrange in a slaughterhouse with a steady throughput of animals—but

we considered that those problems were outweighed by the great merit of staining as an efficient means of identifying unfit meat. Having decided that basic principle, we had to determine the precise extent of the staining requirement, and that proved to be a contentious issue. It was generally accepted that unfit carcase meat should be stained, but there were very diverse views on whether that requirement should be extended also to offals and whether it should cover imported meat as well as meat produced in the United Kingdom.
On the question of offals, although there was limited evidence of any illegal trade in that material, we took the point that was pressed strongly by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, and also by the meat manufacturing industry, that to exclude offals entirely from the staining requirement would create serious potential loopholes. The regulations accordingly incorporate the principle that offals of the types most commonly used for human consumption—hearts, livers, kidneys and lungs—should be stained if they come from animals in a knacker's yard or if they were rejected in a slaughterhouse as unfit because of certain diseases and conditions.
Those are described as "specified offals" in the regulations, and I should emphasise—as this point has caused some uncertainty—that in a slaughterhouse those are the only offals that must be stained. Other sorts of offals, and any offals that are passed as fit at the time of meat inspection, will not have to be stained. The effect of the arrangements is that offals may continue to be sent to pet food manufacturers and other destinations without staining, provided that they have not been condemned on meat inspection. That requirement also does not extend to imported offals because our existing controls on imports of meat exclude material from knackers yards or from animals suffering from the main animal diseases. To have required the staining of imported offal would have caused severe disruption to the existing legitimate trade in offals for pet food manufacturers. I should emphasise that the trade in imported offals will be carefully controlled and monitored by port health authorities and local authorities under the movement permit system.
The system of movement permits is another important element in the new regulations. It had become apparent that a main problem in controlling the trade in unfit meat was the lack of detailed knowledge on the part of the enforcement authorities about the disposal of unfit meat. The essence of the new system of documentary controls is that the local authority responsible for any establishment despatching unfit meat should give prior authorisation to the movement and should, therefore, be fully informed on the details of the consignment and when the meat arrives at its destination the permit will be forwarded to the local authority responsible for the receiving establishment and will then be returned to the authority that issued it. We were, of course, concerned to avoid the unnecessary imposition of new paperwork and bureaucracy. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that the regulations allow for sensible arrangements to be worked out by local authorities for the issue of supplies of movement permits where there is a regular trade between two establishments. The implications for local authorities of having to deal with the additional documentation were fully discussed with the organisations.
The regulations also take account of the fact that animals are sometimes slaughtered or die in places other


than slaughterhouses and knackers yards, for example, on farms. The regulations accordingly provide that unfit meat that is produced from animals slaughtered in places other than slaughterhouses and knackers yards is subject to the same requirements for sterilisation or staining and movement permits. We have also made it clear that the regulations apply to unfit poultry meat as well as to red meat. That point gave rise to some ambiguity in the previous regulations. However, we did not consider that it was necessary to apply to poultry meat the full range of controls applicable to red meat, because there was no evidence of a significant illegal trade in poultry meat.
In preparing the new regulations, we have also taken the opportunity to introduce several clarifications and requirements, such as the requirement that unfit meat held in stores should be marked properly and kept separate from meat fit for human consumption.
I shall now answer the valid points made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) mentioned the cost to the consumer. The regulations will not add significantly to the costs of the meat industry or the consumer. As the regulations are much stronger than those which they replace, they should help to prevent the costly investigations caused by the illegal practices that we have seen during the past year. The hon. Member for Durham asked about specimens for experimental purposes. Regulation 17 states that unfit meat can be used for genuine research and instruction. If the wording does not cover every such activity, I am sure that the enforcement officers will adopt a sensible approach to the interpretation of the section. We do not wish to rule out such legitimate activities.
Several hon. Members referred to penalties and I know that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) wished very much to be here this evening. He has already expressed regret that he could not attend the debate. The Food and Drugs Act 1955 covers England and Wales only, so these regulations could not cover Scotland. The Scottish Office is engaged in discussions and consultations. I understand that the first round has already been completed and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hopes to issue final proposals for broadly parallel regulations next month.

Mr. Mark Hughes: What is the position in Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Fenner: Northern Ireland already has meat sterilisation regulations. Although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not undertaken consultations this year, I understand that it intends to introduce regulations on similar lines as soon as possible.
Regulations under the new Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1982—the Private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Tottenham—are being prepared. These will increase the penalties under the meat sterilisation regulations and from 1 January offences will be tried summarily or upon indictment. There will be a maximum fine of £1,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine

or imprisonment on conviction on indictment. I hope that that will satisfy many hon. Members who have been concerned with the penalties, which have obviously been written in as they stand until 1 January, 1983.

Mr. Mark Hughes: The penalties in these regulations last for two months only from 1 November to 31 December. Thereafter they are greatly increased.

Mrs. Fenner: From 1 January 1983 the penalties will be those—this forms part of the new Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1982—that I have just outlined. I am reliably assured that that will be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West: was naturally concerned about the presence of two dead lions in a slaughterhouse. Dead animals from zoos might be brought into the rendering plant at North Devon Meats, but not into the slaughterhouse. If there is any other matter that he wishes to raise on this issue, I shall be obliged if he will give me the details. If he does so, I shall investigate them.
On the basis of this brief summary of the regulations, I hope that the House will agree that they form a valuable new measure that will do a great deal to protect consumers and to clamp down on the activities of those who are tempted to trade illegally in unfit meat. Given the difficulty of the task of drawing up new regulations which would be acceptable to all the interests concerned, I hope also that the House will accept that the result is, at least at present, the best that could have been achieved.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to move the Second Reading of my Scottish Parliament Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has already been told by the Chair—

Mr. Canavan: I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no provision today for Private Members to move their Bills.

Mr. Canavan: May I ask for your guidance on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This Session is coming to a close and this is the last opportunity for the Second Reading and remaining stages of my Bill to be taken. I do not want to interfere with the time of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who is about to initiate an important debate on the steel industry, and I do not want to delay the House any longer, but if I could just formally move, That the Scottish Parliament Bill be read a Second time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Canavan: —that would—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. That would not be in order. The hon. Gentleman is not able to move his Bill under today's provisions.

Steel Imports

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: The United States of America reacted strongly to the present steel crisis. Community exporters were taking 6·3 per cent. of the United States market—a modest share. The Community agreed swiftly to reduce its exports and conveniently ignored the fact, known in Brussels and London, that steel was being imported from the United States at surprisingly low prices. The United States might have found a 6·3 per cent. penetration hard to bear, but our position is much more serious, as I hope to demonstrate.
I am indebted to many people for information, not least Mr. Sirs and Mr. Upham of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Their researches show that in the first seven months of this year imports rose by about 100,000 tonnes a month. That is an increase of 39½ per cent. It seems clear that 1982 will prove to be the most disastrous year that our steel industry has known.
To a large extent our Community partners bear responsibility because they account for two-thirds of the imports to Britain. That is after our dreadful cut in production. Although we have reduced production enormously since 1977, Community production has risen by 3 per cent. Imports from the Community have risen from 2·3 million tonnes in 1977 to 25 million tonnes in 1981. That information was provided today in an answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Allen McKay: A sell-out to Europe.

Mr. Hardy: A sell-out to Europe, as my hon. Friend says.
Imports from other sources have risen. Imports from Brazil since last year have increased by 7,100 per cent. That is despite the serious claim lodged in Europe about dumping, which appears to have met with no response. Imports from South Korea have risen by 2,600 per cent. in the last year. Imports from France and Italy have risen by over 50 per cent. Austria's supported steel industry has increased its exports by 76 per cent. That may include re-exports from West Germany.
Spain's exports to the United Kingdom have risen by 89 per cent. That is serious. The Warsaw Pact countries have joined in the act, no doubt to help to pay for America's grain. They have increased their steel exports to Britain enormously—Poland by 95 per cent. and the others by a factor of at least four.
South Africa has joined the procession. Our steel imports from there have risen by 383 per cent. so far this year. Those astonishing figures expose the brutal reality of the position.
The Government may regard ISTC evidence as special pleading. Other people, including leaders of the private sector, are now despairing. They have for too long been silent. They have suffered destruction with a stoicism that is almost remarkable.
Material has recently reached me, some as recently as yesterday, which demonstrates the detail of the steel industry's case which it has been presenting to the Government for months. The case appears to have met with little response. The interests of the industry and the nation have been ignored. The Government have made an

ineffectual response to the Community's arrangements, as they have to the private sector's pleas. We should consider the Community's arrangements more positively.
Our partners have revealed an apparent disdain for Count Davignon's policy. Capacity was supposed to be reduced throughout the Community. Germany's capacity is now less than 0·5 per cent. smaller that it was four years ago. France's former capacity is reduced by one-eighth. Belgium and Luxembourg have reduced their capacities by only 3 per cent. Italy has so ignored the Community that it has substantially increased its capacity. We have cut our capacity by a huge amount.
In a recent issue of Metal Bulletin one reads, from the people who know the steel industry well, that there has been no restructuring of the steel industry in Europe except in the United Kingdom. The Community's arrangements have been bad for Great Britain, and they threaten our industrial base. Little has been done and a horrific position has arisen. I quote again from Metal Bulletin:
Loss making companies are permitted to try and dump their products in the marketplace in a desperate attempt to put their economic and financial record straight.
Great Britain appears to have been singled out to bear the burden of that approach.
That is illustrated by the fact that penetration of our tool steel industry has reached 82 per cent. The Minister has been informed of the position. As early as 8 June the Government were informed of astonishing cases of apparent dumping. Specific reference was made to 230 tonnes of tool steel from Italy, 361 tonnes of stainless bar from Spain, 101 tonnes of stainless bar from Japan, and 89 tonnes of stainless bar from Poland, which were all dumped. That correspondence showed anxiety about what appeared to be deficiencies in our supervisory arrangements. Customs errors seem to occur regularly, with many examples of misclassification. What was described as forged constructional steel from Austria was found to be more costly tool steel, and at the same time a similar case arose in respect of supposed constructional steel from Canada. Similar suspicions, that seem well justified, have arisen recently in respect of forged constructional bars from West Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France. I could quote scores of similar cases. That evidence has been given repeatedly to the Department, which should be aware by now of such errors and deficiencies. The case has been spelt out fully, but apparently ignored.
I have seen another letter from the private sector to the Department that cites cases of apparent dumping by Switzerland, Austria, France, West Germany and the Netherlands—all based upon misclassified tool steel. The correspondence did not deal only with misclassification. Many examples of the unloading of other people's steel have been provided.
On 15 June the Government were told that emphasis should be laid on exports from Spain and Brazil, which continue despite the lodging of a serious anti-dumping case in Brussels against Brazil. I have seen copies of other correspondence that has been sent to the Government. In July, more examples of dumping were given and described in the letter as "most excruciating". The excruciation has continued. That letter and others referred to failures in supervision, monitoring and errors in records, because during one month we imported, not 180 tonnes of one class of steel but 300 tonnes. During the same month we imported 170 tonnes of French high-speed bar and not 43 tonnes, as the record shows.
There seems to be an urgent need to improve our procedures to provide a proper regime in the face of the vulture approach that is about to destroy our industry.
It is disturbing that the Commission has failed to respond properly to the representations that have been made by our industry. No doubt we are not helped by the relatively high level of sterling, buoyed as it is by what will prove to be an excessively swift depletion of our oil resources. Our competitors are helped by the level of sterling, but that is only one factor.
I have, justly I believe, a high regard for BSC's special steels. That is a significant factor in my constituency and the metropolitan borough of Rotherham. We are accustomed to breaking world records in our modern plant with our highly trained and efficient steel workers. Even there there is despair and angry frustration. It is experienced by the canteen staff who are anxious because they face redundancy so that the British Steel Corporation can reduce the number of man hours applied for the production of steel. Whether or not people are employed in the canteens, the men must eat. I hope that the Government agree with that.
In that successful plant in my constituency there is profound anxiety. There is no justification for the special steels part of the British Steel Corporation to experience unfair competition. It may not appear to BSC in South Yorkshire that some of the dumping is quite so immediately and directly horrendous as it is in the private sector or in other areas, but even so, there is irritation. We are extremely concerned that we are getting unfair trade from Spain. Spain's steel exports to the United Kingdom in the special steels categories have risen by 136 per cent. this year, and Spain ensures that it remains protected. This happened in the 1970s, but the then Labour Government swiftly imposed a 16 per cent. levy to resolve the current unfairness. This Government have not reacted to Spanish protected dumping now.
It is not simply imported steel that concerns us but imported goods made from steel. Here our exposure is bleak, particularly from Spain. We cannot sell our products there because of tariff barriers 30 per cent. higher than those that we erect against Spanish production. We cannot continue with a situation in which penetration in many steel categories is more than two-thirds and, in some cases, 80 per cent.
In the hundreds of individual cases that have been drawn to the Government's notice this year, the Commission appears to be unable to help. Perhaps it is not very interested. It may be assumed that the problem will go away when the British steel industry finally expires. If something is not done soon, the date of that expiration will be fairly close.
I recently read that South Korea was giving Britain close attention. At the end of July, the Government were given examples of dumping from that country as well as from France and Italy. Again, in August, other examples were given to the Government, but earlier this month there were even more glaring cases. Dumping has been evident in tool steels from Germany, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Austria and France. Dumping in high speed bar steels is evident from Japan, France, Sweden and Austria, some of it at absolutely impossible prices. We have also had dumped stainless bar from Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Brazil, Spain, South Korea, Italy and Poland—all within the recently measured period.
In the face of all that, we see a complacent Government who fail to realise that this dumping is killing off essential and strategically important steel production. This is serious. The private steel finishers are shrinking away. Of course, they then buy less steel from the BSC, which in turn faces greater losses and is liable to greater criticism that the public sector has failed. In fact, it is not the public or private sectors that have failed, but the supine approach of the present Government.
It is entirely wrong that the BSC should have to see further losses mount to pay for the enormous cost of redundancies that, quite frankly, are utterly unnecessary if we serve the nation at all. The failure is not of either public or private sectors in steel. It is a failure of the Government's willingness to react to reality.
This adds up to unemployment, and to a situation in which parts of my own constituency now experience unemployment of one man in three, yet the area affected is not even afforded assistance through Government regional policy.
The Government will say that £22 million was made available months ago to assist the private sector. My information is that, although the money was announced months ago, not a penny piece has been paid out. If there is any further delay, there will be no private sector left to derive any benefit.
We have been in steel crises before, but never before has central direction been quite so dogmatic and unsuccessful. I wonder, even at this late hour, whether the Minister will look at history and learn some lessons.
Our steel industry really developed in the 1850s. and by the middle of that decade there were 1,500 crucible furnaces in the Sheffield area. By the middle of the next decade, I doubt whether there will be many left.
The first major recession occurred in 1873, and we were clearly hurt by our open market, even though other steel producers then applied protection. That is why both the United States and Germany saw steel industry production soar past our own at that time.
A similar situation existed by 1931. Our competitors helped themselves by protection, our exports were blocked, but our market was open. At that time that was felt to be intolerable, and the Import Duties Act 1932 provided protection. That Act led to our steel industry being given a chance. It led to investment, development and the creation of jobs. It led to our being able to survive in 1940 and 1941. The Minister should recognise that jobs are important now because unemployment is higher today than it was when the Act was introduced.
It is no good the Minister saying that membership of the Community prevents action. Italy has looked after itself. France always does so. It is no good the Minister referring to GATT. Article 19 of that arrangement allows action to be taken. It is no good the Minister looking to international example, because no other country practises this degree of indecent exposure. It is no good the Minister blaming the 1980 strike, because the surge in imports has occurred this year. It is no good the Minister offering anodyne comment. Already closures this year have brought strategic disadvantage.
Let us say what steps I believe are necessary. First, there is effective monitoring. The classification errors are intolerable. We should emulate our partners. Perhaps we should send some of our officers to France to see how things are done there.
Secondly, the experience of some of our redundant steel workers could be used in that monitoring exercise. They know the difference between a bright bar and a banana.
Thirdly—and vitally—protective arrangements are essential, not against the under-developed world, because it is not really involved, but against other advanced steel producers.
I hope that the Minister does not believe that the country does not need a steel industry. Steels of special quality are needed—especially as we move, as we must, into areas of high technology. High alloy material is needed, and so is our capacity to produce it. Therefore, we need both the basic and the special industrial base.
The Government seem to believe that we should not take action because we might start a world trade war. I tell the Minister very clearly that South Yorkshire appears to have been in the front line of such a war for some months, and it is about time that the generals down in London understood that hostilities have not only been declared but are violently under way. Already this country has suffered far too many casualties. I hope that the Government will recognise that other people are waging a trade war, even if we have not yet begun it. If some action is not taken, the whole of our steel industry will be forfeit. I believe that we need a steel industry; the Government may not believe that.
It seems to me that for the past few years the Government have sought to prove that steelmen and steel workers were superfluous, but recent events have shown that the steel industry and the steelmen are what we need, and that it is the Government that Britain could better manage without.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on a pugnacious statement of his case this evening. I am glad that he has raised this important issue.
I shall begin by setting out certain facts about the problems facing the United Kingdom steel industry. The steel industry in this country is not alone in facing a crisis. Steel industries in the rest of Europe and indeed the whole of the industrialised world are going through critical times, with few, if any, major steel mills making a profit, demand stagnant or in decline, and a tendency for international market forces to drive prices down.
The figures for the downturn in the steel industries of the industrialised world are dramatic. In total, Western steel output is thought likely this year to be some 420,000,000 tonnes compared with 460,000,000 last year, a figure which was itself 8 per cent. below the 1979 level. It is estimated that United States production will fall by about a quarter this year, with the United States industry operating at 40 per cent. of capacity. Within the European Community, steel output in the last three months of this year is forecast to be 25·6 million tonnes, compared with 31·6 million in the fourth quarter of 1981, a fall which would bring steel production down to the lowest level for 30 years—since 1951, the date when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up. So the problem is a world-wide one.
It is claimed that imports are destroying our steel industry. It is certainly the case that import penetration of

the United Kingdom steel market has increased this year. In total, import penetration for the year to August was 26·9 per cent. The corresponding figure for 1981 was 23·2 per cent. in 1980, the year of the disastrous steel strike, the figure was 33·2 per cent. In the years before 1980, the level was 20 or 21 per cent.
The increase this year is disturbing. The Government recognise that imports present a serious problem for the United Kingdom industry, although a more important problem has been the decline in exports, because of the collapse in world markets. I note that, according to press reports today, the chairman of BSC shares this view. He is quoted as having said in a speech yesterday that imports
are an exaggerated factor. By far the biggest problem is the decline in world demand and the collapse in the market".
Moreover, although the United Kingdom import penetration level this year is worryingly high, it should be pointed out that penetration of the United Kingdom market is in fact lower than that in a number of our European competitors, including France, where the figure over the past few years has been around 43 per cent. and Germany, where it has been around 35 per cent.
Nevertheless, as I have said, the Government are extremely concerned about the increase in imports. The hon. Gentleman has a right to ask what we are doing. Imports into the European Community from the major supplying countries are limited by means of voluntary restraint arrangements, negotiated each year on our behalf by the European Commission. By and large, those arrangements have worked reasonably well this year. Steel imports from non-Community countries have taken 8·8 per cent. of the market here so far this year. That compares with 8·2 per cent. in 1978, 8 per cent. in 1979, and 11·3 per cent. in 1980.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that many of our European partners have not stood by the spirit of that agreement? Indeed, some have abused the voluntary restraint arrangements that were introduced by the Community.

Mr. Butcher: I am not prepared to accept that on behalf of a Government Department for which I am not responsible. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my remarks, he will find that that and other matters are of serious concern to the Department of Trade. The on-going effects upon the industry are very much the concern of my Department. That issue is not being ignored or avoided.
The figure for 1981 was much lower, 5·6 per cent., because of slack demand and low United Kingdom steel prices that year.
While the voluntary restraint arrangements are, as I have said, working reasonably well in general this year, there have certainly been a number of specific cases where problems have arisen. In such cases, the Commission has made representations on our behalf to the partner country concerned. If breaches persist, firm action is taken. For example, a quota was introduced by mutual agreement on United Kingdom imports of steel from Czechoslovakia earlier this year and anti-dumping duties have been imposed on certain steel imports from Brazil and Spain.
I am pleased to report to the House that at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg yesterday my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade urged on the Commission the need for yet more swift and effective use of the Community's anti-dumping legislation. The onus is


now on the Commission—and the Commission is in no doubt about this—to press ahead with the investigation of complaints against unfair imports that are lodged with it. Cases against such countries as Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Canada and Spain are in progress or on the stocks.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend has just said that the onus is on the Commission and that at the meeting yesterday his colleague asked the Commission for swift action to be taken. If that action does not meet with the Government's approval, does my hon. Friend accept that the onus is then on them to take such steps as they think necessary in order to do what the Commission might fail to do?

Mr. Butcher: The Government will look hard at the strength of commitment from the Commission and the undertakings that it gives on timing. My hon. Friend has also been a staunch defender of his constituents' interests and I agree that there is now a time for action. The period for discussion is rapidly coming to a close.
The mandatory quotas on steel production by European Community companies, designed as a short-term measure to bring supply closer to demand, is one of the measures that we have invoked. The levels of those quotas were reduced significantly in the third and fourth quarters of this year, to reflect the worsened market conditions. We have also asked that the measures on price rules should be applied, which refer to steel producers and stockholders.
Therefore, the Government are determined to ensure that the quota regime and price rules are observed as scrupulously by other countries as they are by us. Responsibility for policing the regime falls to the Commission. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said in his statement to the House on 22 October, he made it clear to Vice-President Davignon on 21 October that the Government intended to keep the Commission up to the mark. The measures to restore stability to European Community steel markets must be enforced more effectively. The Government accordingly welcome the fact that the Commission has recently increased the number of inspectors policing the production quota and price regime. The Commission's vigilance has led to large fines being imposed, notably for overproduction in excess of the quota levels. During the summer, seven companies—from Italy, the Netherlands, France and Germany—had fines imposed on them. In one case the sum exceeded £5·5 million.
Unfortunately, only three minutes remain to me in which to respond to some of the important points raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. He mentioned special steels. The Government are conscious of the particular difficulties that the special steels sector is facing. Special steels are not covered by the mandatory

production quotas in the Community. However, the Commission has issued guidelines to producers in other member States concerning deliveries to the United Kingdom market. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade will not mind if I volunteer him to respond more fully on that point. I am sure that he will look in particular into the Spanish question, which the hon. Gentleman raised forcefully. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has written to my hon. and learned Friend about the problems caused to the special steels industry by competition from unfair imports. I, too, have seen copies of the correspondence. There is a litany of pointed and specific questions on particular types of steel by origin of manufacture. I am sure that he would not expect me to answer for another Department tonight on those very specific questions, but I am sure that my hon. Friends in that Department will not mind if I say that they will give the hon. Gentleman's detailed requests urgent attention.
In the larger term, it is essential to ensure that other member States do their share in restructuring their steel industries. There are at present grounds for concern that, despite the major contribution made by the United Kingdom, the preliminary figures for cuts in steel-making capacity notified to the Commission by member States do not meet any reasonable estimate of forecast demand. As the Secretary of State told the House on 22 October, he made it clear to Commissioner Andriessen that the Government expected the Commission to apply the rules of the ECSC State aid decision strictly and fairly so that aids would not be permitted unless accompanied by commensurate capacity reductions. It is true that the United Kingdom industry has done more than any other to restructure and to put its house in order. There will be no let-up in the pressure that we shall place on the Commission to recognise that fact when it considers its future policy.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires. We shall consider the questions that he has raised on dumping, particularly that which arises from misclassification; that will be vigorously pursued. We shall respond strongly to his correspondence, and particularly to the queries that came via the British Independent Steel Producers Association. We shall also consider whether we should improve procedures as a matter of urgency. We shall look to the Commission to make a proper response.
The steel industry will not be allowed to expire. We shall not be supine in our defence of our national interests and we shall be as pugnacious in defence of them as the hon. Gentleman has been in defence of his constituents' interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.